9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 464 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction of court - Whether the allegation that GOI has not, at all stages of the tender, consulted English and Foreign languages University EFLU which is located at Hyderabad would, by itself, constitute cause of action in part having arisen within the territorial limits of this Court? - Held that - It is evident from the letter dated 25.03.2013, addressed to the petitioner by EFLU, that the tender specifications were approved by EFLU for the purpose of inviting tenders. Both the letter addressed by the petitioner to EFLU on 18.03.2013 and the reply thereto by EFLU dated 25.03.2013 are three months after respondents 1, 3 and 4 had accepted the bids, of respondents 5 and 6, on 21.12.2012. The petitioners grievance is only against respondents 1, 3 and 4, for having accepted the bids of respondents 5 and 6, and not against the 2nd respondent. The relief sought for in this writ petition is also not against EFLU which is located at Hyderabad, but against respondents 1, 3 and 4. That EFLU is located at Hyderabad, or that EFLU was not consulted at all stages by the 1st respondent - Government of India, are neither facts of substance nor do they constitute material, integral or essential facts which have nexus and relevance to the lis. The said plea is relevant only to show that the petitioner has a right of action on the accrued cause of action. The distinction between a right of action and the cause of action must be borne in mind, for it is the bundle of facts taken with the law applicable to them which constitutes the cause of action , and it is before the High Court, within whose territorial limits the cause of action has arisen, can the petitioners have his right to the relief enforced. While the petitioners right of action may arise because EFLU was not consulted at all stages of the tender process, the cause of action is the failure of the 1st respondent, (which is located at New Delhi), to consult EFLU at all stages in the tender process, and in respondents 1, 3 and 4 accepting the bids of respondents 5 and 6, none of whom are located within the territorial limits of this Court. The action of the 1st respondent in not consulting EFLU, and that of respondents 1, 3 and 4 in accepting the bids of respondents 5 and 6, is either at New Delhi where the 1st respondent is located, or at Cochi in the State of Kerala where respondent No.6 is situated, and not at Hyderabad merely because EFLU is located thereat. As no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable. The Writ Petition is liable to be accordingly, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court. 2. Alleged irregularities in the bid evaluation process. 3. Non-consultation with EFLU during the tender process. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court: The primary issue was whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners claimed that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Andhra Pradesh High Court because the English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) located in Hyderabad was supposed to be consulted by the Government of India at all stages of the tender process, as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 13.09.2011. The court referred to several precedents, including *Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu* (1994) and *Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra* (2010), to determine that the cause of action must be based on the facts pleaded in the writ petition. The court concluded that the failure to consult EFLU, which is located in Hyderabad, did not constitute a material fact or an integral part of the cause of action. Therefore, no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 2. Alleged Irregularities in the Bid Evaluation Process: The petitioners alleged irregularities in the evaluation of the bid process and were aggrieved by the acceptance of the bids submitted by respondents 5 and 6. They claimed that the tender process was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. However, the court focused on the jurisdictional aspect and did not delve into the merits of these allegations, as it determined that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 3. Non-consultation with EFLU during the Tender Process: The petitioners argued that the Government of India's failure to utilize the services of EFLU as a technical consultant, as envisaged in the MOU, vitiated the tender process. They referred to a letter dated 25.03.2013 from EFLU, which stated that EFLU was not consulted at all stages of the tender process. The court noted that the petitioners' grievance was against respondents 1, 3, and 4 for accepting the bids of respondents 5 and 6, and not against EFLU. The court held that the location of EFLU in Hyderabad and the non-consultation with EFLU were not material facts that constituted a part of the cause of action. The court emphasized that the cause of action arose from the actions of the respondents located in New Delhi and Kerala, and not from the location of EFLU in Hyderabad. Conclusion: The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court did not address the merits of the petitioners' allegations regarding the bid evaluation process and non-consultation with EFLU, as it determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The miscellaneous petitions pending were also disposed of without costs.
|
