Territorial jurisdiction of a High Court cannot be invoked solely based on the respondent's headquarters location; the court must apply the doctrine of forum non-conveniens when the material, essential, and integral cause of action has arisen outside its territorial jurisdiction.

CM APPL. 22717/2026 (EXEMPTION)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4660/2026 and CM APPL. 22718/2026

3. The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish and supply to the Petitioner copy of the report dated October 28, 2025, of Respondent No. 2, which was forwarded to the CVC and Respondent No. 3;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to place on record all the steps taken by them basis the CVC's direction to take "necessary action", as per the online case status;

c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to disclose before this Hon'ble Court the complete records, files, noting(s) and documents pertaining to the vigilance enquiry (including but not limited to the report dated October 28, 2025), by the then Central Vigilance Officer of Respondent No. I, conducted pursuant to the Complaints filed by the Petitioner;

d) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents that upon furnishing and disclosure of the aforesaid reports, records, files, noting(s) and documents to the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall, within a time-bound period, take all necessary and consequential action(s) in accordance with law and Tender documents, and place the same on record before this Hon'ble Court;

e) Pass any such other or further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. It appears that the petitioner earlier had filed as a writ petition before the Bombay High Court bearing W.P.(C) 25315/2025 seeking, inter alia, a direction that it be declared as L1 Bidder qua respondent no. 1‟s tender dated 08.05.2025, for hiring a Service Provider for Operation of Supply base at Pipavav Port, Gujarat (hereinafter “said Tender”). The petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2025 with liberty to file afresh. The said order reads as under:

“It appears that no formal application for carrying out amendments in the writ petition was moved on 18th August 2025 when leave was granted for amendment to the petitioners.

2. Mr. Setalvad, the learned senior advocate appearing for respondent no.1 has raised certain objections to several prayers which were not in the original petition.

3. Mr.Vyas, the learned senior advocate appearing for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with proper prayers supported by the documents therein.

4. Writ Petition (L) No.25315 of 2025 is disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. It is also indicated that withdrawal of this writ petition with permission of the Court shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any other proceeding taken out by the petitioner or against the petitioner in future.”

5. Subsequently, it appears, that the petitioner yet again knocked the doors of the Bombay High Court through another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 27431/2025, challenging, inter alia, the opinion of the Independent External Monitor (hereinafter “IEM”). The said writ petition seems to have been disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2025, as being withdrawn by the petitioner, on the grounds that the Central Vigilance Commission („CVC‟), as per its memorandum, cannot delve into matters which are pending before a Court of law.