Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (5) TMI HC This
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.
|