2023 (3) TMI 1524 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial limits of the Nagpur Bench of Court - Tender floated by the respondent in the matter of transportation of Raw Coal transportation against Road-cum-Rail (RCR) Allocation from Kusmunda/Gevra/Dipka mines of South East Coalfield Limited (SECL) to the Thermal Power Stations of the respondent - HELD THAT - A perusal of the E-Tender document indicates that it has been published by the respondent through its Head Office at Mumbai. All steps commencing from registration of the prospective bidders, sale of the tender document, holding of the pre-bid meeting followed by the entire process till opening of the financial bids is to be conducted at the Head Office at Mumbai. It is true that certain acts such as submission of E-Tender document and payment of amount in that regard are permitted to be done online. Merely because the petitioner who has its Office at Nagpur has downloaded the E-Tender document at Nagpur and thereafter sought to upload the E-Tender document from Nagpur, the same would not be sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction at Nagpur in absence of any part of a cause of action having arisen here. The extension of time from 03.03.2023 to 09.03.2023 has occurred at the Head Office at Mumbai. Even the fact that the transportation of Raw Coal at some Thermal Power Stations situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench is not a relevant factor at this pre-bid stage. The issue in question is of the extension of time for submission of bids which the petitioner alleges is contrary to the conditions of the notice inviting tender. As observed by this Court in BALAJI VENTURES PVT. LTD. VERSUS MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., VIMALA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2022 (1) TMI 1453 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , it is only that fact which has a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved that gives rise to a cause of action which would be relevant as held in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ADANI EXPORTS LTD. 2001 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT - on perusing the writ petition and reading the entire tender document that no part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of Nagpur Bench for the writ petition to be entertained in the light of the reliefs sought therein. The writ petition for absence of cause of action or even part thereof arising at the Nagpur Bench of the High Court. The writ petition is thus not entertained on merits and it is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to tender floated by respondent for Raw Coal transportation against RCR Allocation from specific mines to Thermal Power Stations. Territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a tender floated by the respondent for Raw Coal transportation against Road-cum-Rail (RCR) Allocation from specific mines to Thermal Power Stations. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench to entertain the petition. The E-Tender document was published from the Head Office of the respondent in Mumbai, requiring online registration, sale, and submission of bids. The respondent argued that since the entire tender process, evaluation, and reverse bidding were conducted online through the Head Office in Mumbai, no cause of action arose in Nagpur to challenge the tender.

The petitioner contended that part of the cause of action arose in Nagpur as it had downloaded and submitted the E-Tender document from there. Reference was made to specific clauses of the bid document to support this claim. The petitioner also highlighted a previous writ petition where the Court allowed offline submission due to technical issues. The petitioner argued that since some Thermal Power Stations were within the Nagpur Bench's jurisdiction, the petition should be entertained on merits. Legal precedents were cited to distinguish previous judgments and support the petitioner's position.

An applicant intervening in the proceedings supported the respondent's objection, emphasizing the lack of pleadings demonstrating how the cause of action arose in Nagpur. After hearing all parties, the Court found that no part of the cause of action originated within the Nagpur Bench's territorial limits. The Court noted the absence of essential pleadings indicating the basis for invoking the Nagpur Bench's jurisdiction. It was emphasized that even though the petitioner's office was in Nagpur, mere submission of online bid documents from there was insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The Court further analyzed the E-Tender process, highlighting that all significant steps were conducted at the respondent's Head Office in Mumbai. The extension of bid submission time, a key issue in the petition, occurred in Mumbai, not in Nagpur. The Court concluded that the cause of action did not arise in Nagpur based on a thorough review of the petition and the tender document. Even if a part of the cause of action was found to be in Nagpur, the Court invoked the doctrine of 'Forum Conveniens' to reject entertaining the petition, considering the evaluation location and convenience. Ultimately, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the absence of any cause of action in Nagpur and disposed of the case, allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdiction.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the judgment, including the challenge to the tender process, the arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction, and the Court's reasoning for declining to entertain the petition.