9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 EF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 territory of India including the State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioners 2 and 3 (both of which are located in Srilanka) are said to have submitted their separate bids on 03.08.2012, and a letter of intent for entering into a joint venture with petitioner No.1. The 5th respondent company, registered under the Srilanka Companies Act, 2007, is said to have joined with the 6th respondent (a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956), and to have submitted their bid. The petitioners refer to certain instances which, according to them, are irregularities in evaluation of the bid process. They are aggrieved by the action of respondents 1, 3 and 4 in accepting the bids submitted by respondents 5 and 6. In support of his submission that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on Article 3 of the M.O.U dated 3.09.2011 which relates to "project execution", whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termining 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 otherwise of the said facts. In other words, the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the writ petition. (Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 ). In the absence of an averment that the cause of action, or a part of it, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court the writ petition would be dismissed. (Sarabjit Kaur v. Union of India (1999) 9 SCC 29 ). Can the mere fact that the Government of India has not, at all stages, consulted EFLU which is located at Hyderabad give rise to a part of the "cause of action" within the territorial limits of this Court? Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court, exercising jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be a part of the cause of action. For every action, there has to be a cause of action. If not the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. (Kusum Ingots Alloys (2004) 6 SCC 254 ). It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved. (Read v. Brown (1888) Vol.XXII QBD 128, The State of Madras v. C.P.Agencies AIR 1960 SC 1309 ). In other words it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. (State of Rajasthan v. M/s.Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217 ; Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai 1994(6) SCC 322 ; Om Prakash Sriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liest 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 the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action." In order to exercise jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, the High Court must be satisfied, from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action, that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. (Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.: National Textile Corpn. Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567). Each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing on the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "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 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 "c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
