2024 (7) TMI 1580 - HC - Indian Laws

Invocation of doctrine of forum conveniens - Territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner-institute - Seeking direction to respondents to grant renewal permission to the petitioner institute for 150 seats for admission to the MBBS Course for Academic Year 2024-25 - HELD THAT - It is noted that the petitioner-institute is situated in the State of Punjab and the medical college is affiliated with Baba Farid University of Health Science and is under the administrative control of the Director, Medical Education and Research, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. The petitioner-institute is also approved and recognized by the State Government of Punjab. The ground on which the petitioner-institute has approached this High Court is that the Head Office of National Medical Commission i.e., respondent no. 2 is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. However, merely because the office of respondent no. 2 is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be a ground to entertain the instant writ petition. As per the Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT , in case a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor to compel that particular High Court to exercise its jurisdiction. Further, in appropriate cases, the Court may decline to exercise its discretion by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 (10) TMI 1281 - DELHI HIGH COURT , has held that in case of pan India Tribunals, or Tribunals/statutory authorities having jurisdiction over several States, the situs of the Tribunal would not necessarily be the marker for identifying the jurisdictional High Court. This Court also notes, based on judicial precedents, that Courts have the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise or decline their discretion to entertain writ petitions when the petitioner has an alternative, more appropriate, and convenient High Court to approach. It is reiterated that it is a settled position of law that if only a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may decline to entertain the case if it is of the opinion that it is not the forum conveniens. Conclusion - The jurisdiction is not solely determined by the location of a respondent's office but requires a substantial part of the cause of action to arise within the jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.

2024 (12) TMI 1475 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner-institute.
Whether the denial of renewal permission for MBBS seats to the petitioner-institute was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Whether the petitioner-institute was entitled to an opportunity to rectify deficiencies before the denial of renewal permission.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which provides for the issuance of writs by High Courts. The court referred to precedents such as Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. regarding the doctrine of forum conveniens and the determination of territorial jurisdiction.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that the mere location of the respondent's office within its jurisdiction is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. It highlighted the need for a substantial part of the cause of action to arise within the jurisdiction.
Key evidence and findings: The court found that the petitioner-institute is located in Punjab, and the primary grievance is against the National Medical Commission, whose head office is in Delhi. However, the court noted that this alone does not establish jurisdiction.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the doctrine of forum conveniens, determining that the appropriate forum for the petition is the Punjab and Haryana High Court, given the location of the petitioner-institute and the nature of the grievances.
Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for jurisdiction based on the respondent's location, while the respondent contended that the appropriate jurisdiction lies with the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court sided with the respondent's argument.
Conclusions: The court concluded that it lacks territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the petition on this ground.

Issue 2: Denial of Renewal Permission

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner cited Chapter III-Penalties Clause 8 of the Maintenance of Standard of Medical Education Regulation, 2023, which mandates providing an opportunity to rectify deficiencies.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court did not delve into the merits of this issue due to its decision on jurisdiction.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner claimed that other similarly placed institutions were granted renewal with penalties, while the respondent denied renewal without a hearing.
Application of law to facts: The court did not apply the relevant regulations due to the jurisdictional decision.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court acknowledged the petitioner's arguments but did not address them substantively.
Conclusions: The court did not reach a conclusion on this issue due to the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit."
Core principles established: The court reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is not solely determined by the location of a respondent's office but requires a substantial part of the cause of action to arise within the jurisdiction.
Final determinations on each issue: The petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, with the petitioner advised to approach the appropriate court.

← Previous Next →