9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution of India, on behalf of the petitioners, seek the following identical prayers: "I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to refrain from granting any permission, recognition or approval to the proposed nursing college to be established by St. Alphonsa Trust on the Subject Properties. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to cancel/revoke any permission, recognition or approval already granted to the said proposed nursing college, if any. III. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to conduct an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the grant of Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024 to St. Alphonsa Trust. IV. Grant an interim order restraining the Respondents from taking any action on the Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024 or any application based on it, pending the final disposal of this petition..." 3. The petitioner i.e. Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., on 01.11.2013, had entered into an agreement with St. Alphonsa Trust, represented by the Bishop of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Trust. Another writ petition, W.P. (MD) No. 12635/2023, had been filed on 23.05.2023 seeking to restrain the Medical Council of India from submitting any report or recommendation before the National Medical Commission. Both petitions were eventually withdrawn on 16.08.2024. 4. In light of these events, the petitioner has now approached this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from granting any permission, recognition, or approval for the establishment of a nursing college to the Trust on the attached subject property, and an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the grant of the Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that despite being aware of the order of attachment concerning the subject properties, the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the Letter of Permission (LOP) dated 10.08.2024 based on a fraudulent application. It is stated that the notice issued by them was ignored and not taken into cognizance by the authorities. It is further submitted that although a Show Cause Notice has been issued by the respondent authorities and the LOP has been suspen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are situated in Tamil Nadu only. Further, the petitioner had earlier approached the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, seeking similar reliefs. However, after failing to secure a favorable order, the petitioner had withdrawn the petitions and has now approached this Court, contending that the head office of the respondent being located in Delhi grants jurisdiction to this Court. It is argued that the location of the respondent's office in Delhi does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the petition. In this regard, the respondents have also placed reliance on several judgments of this Court, to support the contention that the mere location of an office in a particular territory does not suffice for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has engaged in forum shopping by choosing to approach this Court after being unsuccessful before the Madras High Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner failed to implead necessary parties such as St. Alphonso Trust and the counseling authorities situated in Tamil Nadu, which are essential for the adjudication of this matter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitions be dismissed on grounds of maintainability alone. 8. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents, and has perused the material placed on record. 9. Upon considering the facts and arguments presented before this Court, it is clear that the primary dispute in these cases is between the petitioner i.e. Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and St. Alphonsa Trust, which also revolves around the construction of buildings for a proposed medical college located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. Both the petitioner and the respondent Trust are situated in Tamil Nadu, and the properties in question are also located there. The cause of action, including the petitioner's claims for unpaid amounts and subsequent arbitration proceedings, arise out of events which took place in Tamil Nadu. Further, the orders relating to the property in dispute, including the attachment order and the arbitral award, have all been passed by the District Court in Nagercoil and the Madras High Court. The petitioner has previously approached these Courts for relief, and the orders passed by them directly pertain to the property in question and the execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petitions. The constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the "cause of action", referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction when writ powers conferred by clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person is not within those territories. 16. The expression "cause of action" has not been defined in the Constitution. However, the classic definition of "cause of action" given by Lord Brett in Cooke v. Gill [Cooke v. Gill, (1873) LR 8 CP 107] that "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court", has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such "cause of action" is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apparent that no cause of action at all has arisen within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court." 15. In case of Vemparala Srikant v. General Secretary, India Bulls Centrum Flat Owners Welfare Co-Operative Society, Hyderabad, LPA No. 744/2024, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the question as to whether an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can be challenged before this High Court or has to be challenged before the respective jurisdictional High Courts, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the foundational facts giving rise to the cause of action to the appellant to approach the Consumer Fora arose within the State of Telangana, it would be absurd to allow the petitions against orders of NCDRC to be filed only in High Court of Delhi, which would mean that a consumer who is agitating for his rights in far of places like Assam, Manipur or any other distant part of the country would have to necessarily travel to Delhi for such redressal, which cannot be allowed in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions against the respondents, including Tamil Nadu Medical Council and Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, to restrain them from granting any permission to St. Alphonsa Trust (situated in Tamil Nadu) to start nursing and medical college on the properties situated at Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, is the pendency of civil disputes in the courts of Tamil Nadu between the petitioner and the Trust. The petitioner previously has already invoked the jurisdiction of High Court of Madras for seeking similar reliefs. 21. This Court is thus of the opinion that the petitioner herein has engaged in forum shopping by seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court after having withdrawn petitions from the appropriate forum in Tamil Nadu. Such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favorable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, cannot be condoned. 22. In view of the above, the present petitions along with pending application stand dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, alongwith a total cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- in each petition), to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within two weeks. 23. Needl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
