The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose entirely in UP. Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court was a forum non conveniens.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SHOBHA RAM AHIRWAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. F.S.Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
NTPC LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja and Ms. Shaheen, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
as also being a forum non-conveniens , a detailed order was passed on
25.1.2017, which reads as under:-
“1. It is seen that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition because petitioner’s services were not at Delhi but were at Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner was posted from Dadri, Uttar Pradesh to Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh and again back to Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. Even the impugned letters which the petitioner is challenging, dated 6.7.2015 and 30.7.2015, have been issued by the employer/NTPC Limited from its Dadri office. There is also an issue of forum convenience and forum non-convenience and this court is forum non-convenience in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc., AIR 2011 (Delhi) 174, and the relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:-
“33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows:
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 1 of 11
authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd . (supra)
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of mala fide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra)
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) “that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens” is not correct.
(h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled.”
2. Merely because the head office of the employer is in Delhi will not confer this Court’s territorial jurisdiction once the entire cause of action is outside Delhi.
3. Though, counsel for the petitioner also argued that the impugned letters have been communicated at Delhi, I, prima facie , do not find that the impugned letters dated 6.7.2015 and 30.7.2015 have been communicated to the petitioner at Delhi because the letter dated 6.7.2015 shows that the same was communicated to the petitioner at his office at Dadri and the same would also be the position of the letter dated 30.7.2015.
4. Though, the respondents have not taken up a plea of territorial jurisdiction or the issue of forum non-convenience, but since this issue
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 2 of 11
goes to the root of the matter, I have put counsel for the petitioner to notice of this aspect.
5. List on 10th March, 2017.”
means of the present writ petition are dated 6.7.2015 and 30.7.2015,
which read as under:-
Order dated 06.07.2015 “Ref. No.:08/HR/EB/80344/2015 Dated:06.07.2015 To Shri Shobha Ram Ahirwar, S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Dy. Supdt. (O&M) Employee No. 080344 NTPC-Dadri
Through: AGM (Th-EM)I/C Sub: W.P.(C) 5334/2015-Shobha Ram Ahirwar Vs. NTPC & Ors. This has reference to the Order dated 26.05.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed in the captioned Writ Petition which was filed by you.
As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the Writ Petition filed by you has been treated as your representation by the competent authority.
The Competent authority has gone through all the averments made by you in the Writ Petition.
Further, as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court, the competent authority has called you for personal hearing on 04.07.2015 at 2.00 pm in his office located at Core-6, 7th Floor, Scope Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi. However, you did not come for the personal hearing and the competent authority waited for almost 01 hour.
The Competent authority has carefully considered all your averments made in the Writ Petition and also taken your representation for treating the transfer order dated 04.06.2014 as a recall or cancellation of transfer order dated 04.10.2013.
After considering all the aspects and submission made by you in your representation dated 03.06.2015 and Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) 5334/2015, the competent authority has now decided and advised undersigned to inform you as under:-
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 3 of 11
for reporting and join duty at Auraiya but you failed to join at transferred place. Your salary therefore could not be processed for the period of unauthorized absence.
The above is issued in compliance with the Order of Hon’ble High Court.
Sd/(A.K. Ojha) AGM (HR)
Order dated 30.07.2015 REF.NO.:08/HR/EB/080344 DATE: 30.07.2015 Sh. Shobha Ram Ahirwar Dy Manager (Th-EM) E.No.080344
Through: AGM(Th-EM)I/c
Dear Sir,
Please refer to our letters dated 07.01.2015, 29.01.2015, 17.02.2015, 10.03.2015, 02.04.2015, 27.04.2015, 28.04.2015 and 15.06.2015 advising you to apply for leaves to regularize the period of unauthorized absence from 15.10.2013 to 26.12.2014 (438 days). It is observed that despite repeated reminders you have failed to regularize the said period of unauthorized absence.
Since you are about to superannuate on 31.07.2015, we have been left with no other option but to regularize the 438 days of unauthorized
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 4 of 11
absence by way of applying the HPLs (425 days) and ELs (13 days) to your credit. This shall facilitate in settlement of your terminated dues on your superannuation.
This is for your information please. Thanking you,
Yours faithfully, Sd/(Sudha Rao) Sr.Mgr. (HR)”
a part of cause of action arises within its territory, and the cause of action arises in the present case on account of challenge to the impugned letters dated 6.7.2015 and 30.7.2015. These letters however achieve finality by their communication, and which communication is admittedly done to the petitioner not at Delhi but at Dadri, UP vide Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 180 . The entire cause of action therefore with respect to challenge to the impugned letters dated 6.7.2015 and 30.7.2015 arises outside Delhi, and at Dadri, UP and therefore, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. Once this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction because neither whole nor a part of the cause of action has not arisen in Delhi, accordingly, the writ petition has to be and accordingly liable to be dismissed for lacking territorial jurisdiction.
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 5 of 11
under:-
26.5.2015 was passed. The order dated 26.5.2015 is an innocuous
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 6 of 11
order for treating the writ petition as a representation and for the competent authority to pass appropriate orders and decide as to whether the petitioner has been re-transferred or whether the earlier order of the transfer was recalled. Therefore, since the issue of territorial jurisdiction did not come up in earlier W.P.(C) No. 5334/2015, accordingly, it cannot be argued that merely because earlier W.P.(C) No. 5334/2015 was disposed of by this Court, therefore, this Court should hear and dispose of the present writ petition because the Court must be held to have territorial jurisdiction.
the petitioner has no applicability to the facts of the present case because the ratio of Madan Lal’s case (supra) is only that once an earlier judgment is passed between the parties, that earlier judgment is final and cannot be questioned on any ground, and the earlier final judgment has only to be implemented. The issue as regards the territorial jurisdiction of a Court was not in issue and not decided in the case of Madan Lal (supra), and which judgment is only on the issue that the earlier judgment between the same parties is the binding precedent between the parties. In Madan Lal’s case (supra), it was held that since there was an earlier judgment between the parties which
bound the parties, accordingly, the earlier judgment had to be
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 7 of 11
implemented. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Madan Lal (supra) cannot help the petitioner to argue that this judgment entitles the petitioner to file the present writ petition in this Court allegedly because this Court has territorial jurisdiction.
(ii) I cannot agree with this argument urged on behalf of the petitioner because when an employer, being the NTPC Ltd. in this case, is sued through its Chairman and Managing Director, then the Chairman and Managing Director only represents the competent authority of the employer. It is not as if the impugned orders were directed to be passed by the Chairman and Managing Director and
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 8 of 11
simply because the employer as per the Memo of Parties is sued through its Chairman and Managing Director. The argument urged is completely frivolous and this argument cannot be accepted simply because in a Memo of Parties when a company is said to be represented through the Chairman and Managing Director, it would not mean that it is only the Chairman and Managing Director who has to pass orders, and not the requisite competent authority in the respondent no.1/NTPC/employer. Such stretched reading of description of a party
in a Memo of Parties is absolutely unacceptable and is therefore rejected.
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 9 of 11
of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction is on account of existence of whole or part of the cause of action, and which are also the principles applied under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, but since, and as already stated above, neither whole nor a part of cause of action accrues at Delhi, this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction.
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016 Page 10 of 11
applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited (supra) , it is held that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
MARCH 10, 2017/ tp/ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
W.P.(C) No.1897/2016
Page 11 of 11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging orders passed in UP.
Whether the principle of forum non conveniens applies where the entire cause of action arises outside Delhi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶14
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc., AIR 2011 (Delhi) 174 · Who else cites this
New India Assurance Company LimitedExplained¶15
New India Assurance Company Limited (supra)
Alchemist LtdReferred¶19
Alchemist Ltd (supra)
Ambica IndustriesReferred¶23
Ambica Industries (supra)
Adani Exports Ltd.Referred¶23
Adani Exports Ltd. (supra)
Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development AuthorityApplied¶60
Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 180 · Who else cites this
Madan Lal Vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶62
Madan Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 647 · Who else cites this
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick DasDistinguished¶77
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and AnotherDistinguished¶82
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another (2005) 7 SCC 791 · Who else cites this
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading CompanyApplied¶86
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270 · Who else cites this
Shobha Ram Ahirwar
NTPC Limited
Valmikiji Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
