##PAGE1##

3

08.01.2026

Court. No. 25

D.Hira

WPA 29996 of 2025

Shree Jagdamba Coke Industries

Private Limited & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr.Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Amritam Mondal,

Mr. Supravat Banerjee,

Mr. Jyotirmoy Jha.

…for the Petitioners.

Mr. Souvik Nandy, Sr. Adv.,

Ms. Supriya Dubey.

… for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4

Mr. Amal Kumar Datta,

Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal.

… for the Union of India

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ

application challenging the tender notice issued by

the Steel Authority of India for supply of coke

breeze of 92,500 metric tons for six months at their

plants at IISCO Steel Plant, Rourkela Steel Plant

and Durgapur Steel Plant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as

per Clause 5 (2) (b) of the eligibility criteria of the

said tender, the bidders should have supplied

minimum 24,500 metric tons coke breeze by rail to

any Central or State Government

organizations/PSU/Public Limited Company over a

period of any consecutive twelve months during the

last five financial years and current financial year

2

ending last day of the month prior to the month in

which this tender is issued.

3. Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned senior advocate

appearing for the petitioners submits that the

condition imposed by the Steel Authority of India

for supply of coke breeze by rail is arbitrary in

nature and is only to favour a particular entity and

no other bidders in the entire market can

participate in the said tender.

4. This application was moved before the Vacation

Bench on 31st December, 2025 and this Court has

passed an interim order restraining the respondent

authorities for taking any decision for inviting

tender till 8th January, 2026 and the Steel

Authority of India is directed to file a report on the

date fixed.

5. Today when the matter is called on, learned

counsel appearing for the Steel Authority of India

has filed a report after serving a copy to the learned

counsel for the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised the

issue of maintainability of the present writ

application, on the ground that this Court is not

having jurisdiction to entertain the writ application

as the Steel Authority of India has published the

tender from Rourkela Steel Plant and the tender is

to be concluded at Rourkela Steel Plant itself.

Thus, this Court is not having jurisdiction.

3

7. The second point raised by the respondents is that

the Court does not have the expertise to examine

the terms and conditions of the tender document

and cannot interfere with the tender process.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in

support of his submissions has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Oil And Natural Gas

Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.

reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711

and submits that in the said case also the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the tender was

submitted and scrutinized at New Delhi and the

execution of the contract works to be carried out at

Hazira in Gujarat and merely because

advertisement was made at Calcutta and

representation was made from Calcutta would not

constitute cause of action.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents have further

relied upon the judgment in the case of Kusum

Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

reported in (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254

and submits that in the said case also the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has considered the case of Oil and

Natural Gas Commission (supra) and held that in

order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to

entertain a writ petition it must disclose that the

integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of

action do constitute a cause so as to empower the

4

Court to decide the dispute and the entire or a part

of it arose within its jurisdiction.

10. He submits that in the present case no cause of

action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court

and all cause of action is in Rourkela.

11. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of

Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa & Ors.

reported in (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 517

and submits tha