$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15168/2025, CM APPL. 62224/2025 and CM APPL.

4223/2026 MS SPECIAL BLASTS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Saurabh S. Sinha, Ms. Chitra Y.

Pande and Ms. Rishhab Shivhare, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Amav Mittal, Mr. Akash Mishra and Mr.Mayank Sansanwal, Advs., for R-

1 and 3.

Mr. M. Samantray and Ms. Ayushi Upadhyay, Advs. for R-2.

Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adarsh, mr. Ayushman, Mr.

Parth, Advocates for intervenor.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026

1. The petitioner in the instant petition prays for the following reliefs:-

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent no. 1 to place before this Hon'ble Court the communication received from DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry referred to in letter bearing no. PD-26025/12/2020-PD- II/342898 dated 08.09.2025 issued by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (Ports Wing), Government of India; and B. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quashing letter bearing no. PD-26025/12/2020-PDII/342898 dated 08.09.2025 issued by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (Ports Wing), Government of India; and C. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quashing Trade Circular bearing No. TD/TM/IMP-47/2663 dated

16.09.2025 issued by Paradip Port Authority; and D. Issue any other writ, order or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. The Court vide its order dated 26.09.2025 while issuing notice has noted, at paragraph no.13, the objection regarding jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 reiterated the said objection and she submits that merely on the ground that respondent no.1 is situated in Delhi, the Court should not entertain the instant writ petition.

4. In Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168. a Division Bench of this Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that where only a small part of the cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, the Court has a discretion to apply doctrine of forum conveniens. Importantly, the decision in the case of Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urbam Development Corp.,, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892. was also relied upon to hold that where the “most vital parts of the cause of action” have arisen the petition should be entertained. The mere presence of the registered office of the Respondent in Delhi would be irrelevant in determining territorial jurisdiction as it amounts to a miniscule part of the cause of action. The material portions of the judgement read as under:

“9. It is a settled position of law that where only a small part of the cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, the same cannot automatically clothe the Court with jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such cases, the Court is obligated to follow the doctrine of forum conveniens. The doctrine of forum conveniens was elucidated by a full bench of this Court in Sterling Agro (supra) where it was held as follows:

“31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of