9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution of India. They seek a direction to respondents 1, 3 and 4 to renotify the notice inviting bids duly consulting the 2nd respondent at all stages of the tender, and award the contract to the successful bidder for setting up the nine provincial Srilanka Centres for English language training. Facts, to the limited extent necessary to examine whether or not this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, are that the 1st respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of Srilanka on 13.09.2011 to render technical and financial assistance for setting up nine Srilanka provincial centres for English language training. The said MOU envisaged a project known as the "India - Srilanka project for expanding English language training in Srilanka". Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent is said to have given its financial concurrence to the project for approximately Rs.5.6 crores. Thereafter a notice inviting tender was issued on 08.07.2012, in the public procurement portal of the Government of India, for setting up nine language laboratories in Srilanka. The petitioners claim that the said notice is accessible throughout the territ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of this Court and the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is necessary to note that the situs of respondent No.1 is at New Delhi, respondent No.6 in the State of Kerala, and respondents 3 to 5 at Colombo in Srilanka. It is the 2nd respondent alone which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners have not sought any relief against the 2nd respondent. It is their case that failure of the Government of India, to utilize the services of the EFLU, has vitiated the tender process, and consequently the respondents should renotify the notices inviting bids duly consulting the 2nd respondent at all stages of the tender. The question whether the "cause of action", either in whole or in part, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court must only be decided on the basis of the pleadings. In determining the objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration, albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs 2007 (13) Scale 77; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 ). The collocation of the words "cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" seems to have been lifted from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which section also deals with the jurisdictional aspect of Courts. (Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharastra (2000) 7 SCC 640 ). Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered on an interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC apply to writ proceedings also. (Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 ; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 254 ). "Cause of action" implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. The expression "cause of action" is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter-alia to mean that every fact which would be nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person (Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; In Words and Phrases (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action", in common legal parlance, is the existence of those facts which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. (Navinchandra N. Majithia (2000) 7 SCC 640 ; Om Prakash Srivastava (2006) 6 SCC 207 ). In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.):- " 'Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. 'Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that a particular act on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt to which the litigant approaches at his own choice or convenience. (Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 ; Navinchandra N. Majithia (2000) 7 SCC 640 ). While a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of both the Delhi and the Kerala High Courts, where the 1st and the 6th respondent respectively are located, what, however, needs to be examined is whether a part of the cause of action can be said to have also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, for even if a fraction of the cause of action has so arisen, and as the choice of the forum is for the suitor to decide, the petitioner would be justified in having invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. As noted hereinabove, the question which falls for consideration is whether the allegation that the Government of India has not, at all stages of the tender, consulted EFLU which is located at Hyderabad would, by itself, constitute "cause of action in part" having arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
