9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to tender process and contract award based on territorial jurisdiction of filing the petition.
Details of the judgment: 1. The petitioners challenged the tender process and contract award by the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited. The Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of filing the petition at Nagpur. The issue was whether the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench or the Principal Seat at Bombay. 2. The Respondent No. 1 argued that the filing of a writ petition is controlled by Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which empowers a High Court to exercise jurisdiction based on the territory where the cause of action arises. The territorial jurisdiction was delineated by Section 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, and Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. 3. The Petitioner contended that only writ petitions with the cause of action within specified districts could be filed before the Nagpur Bench. The events related to the cause of action included communications received at Nagpur, while significant actions like tender notice publication and document scrutiny occurred in Bombay. 4. The Petitioner's Counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions to support the objection that the cause of action should determine the jurisdiction of filing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the cause of action must arise wholly or partly within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to avoid abuse of process and maintain the dignity of the institution. 5. The Court referred to previous decisions where similar principles were reiterated, emphasizing that the cause of action must align with the territorial jurisdiction specified by the rules and acts. In the present case, as the cause of action did not arise within the specified districts, the petition was not maintainable before the Nagpur Bench. 6. The Petitioner's Counsel cited a previous case to argue that the Nagpur Bench had the power to exercise writ jurisdiction within the State of Maharashtra. However, the Court clarified that while administrative rules and acts do not abridge the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226, they must be considered for administrative convenience. 7. The Court concluded that the communications received at Nagpur did not constitute part of the cause of action, and therefore, the petition should not be entertained by the Nagpur Bench. The papers were directed to be returned to the Petitioner for filing before the Principal Seat at Bombay.
|
