IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23874 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.YOUSUF, PROPRIETOR, M/S.VENAD STEEL AGENCIES, SARATHI JUNCTION,CHANDANATHOPPE P.O., KOLLAM,PIN-691 014. BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LIMITED,A GOVERNMENT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P & T COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA,VISHAKAPATANAM,ANDHRA PRADESH- 530 013,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LIMITED,A GOVERNMENT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19-3-13(M), RENIGUNTA ROAD,TIRUPATI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-P & MM, APEPDCL CORPORATE OFFICE,TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA,NEAR GURUDWARA JUNCTION, VISHAKAPATANAM-530 013. 4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-O & P & MM, APEPDCL CORPORATE OFFICE,19-3-13(M), RENIGUNTA ROAD,TIRUPATI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 501. 5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, D BLOCK,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD,ANDHRA PRADESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 23874 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT The first respondent, a Government Company, incorporated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and stated to be an instrumentality of the State of Andhra Pradesh, issued a notification for public auction of old, discarded, burnt Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR), AAC, Aluminium Winding Wire scrap etc. accumulated in the respective District Depots. Petitioner participated in the tender. His offer was accepted and contract was executed between the parties. It seems that thereafter the petitioner lifted the stock in part. But he did not lift the entire stock as the prices had crashed in a drastic manner, according to him. He therefore, approached the respondents with Exts.P4 and P5 representations in which he requested for a revision in the price. In the alternative, he suggested a retender with an assurance that the petitioner then will bid at a price higher than the highest bid. This was apparently not accepted by the respondents. Petitioner also W.P.(C). No. 23874 OF 2009 2 requested for a refund of the EMD. These requests were not accepted by the respondents. Contract was terminated and the deposit effected by the petitioner was forfeited. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. Respondents 1 to 4 have their registered office in Andhra pradesh. 5th respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh itself. The writ petition would therefore not be maintainable in this Court in terms of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Aswin Gopa Kumar submits that part of the cause of action in respect of the writ petition has arisen before this Court. According to him, bids were registered pursuant to Ext.P1 on line and therefore part of the contract was executed or finalized within the jurisdiction of this Court. I am unable to accept the submission. The cause of action for the writ petitioner is not acceptance of the petitioner's bid. Even the petitioner does not have a case that the contract was actually executed within Kerala is only a reasonable to presume that the W.P.(C). No. 23874 OF 2009 3 agreement would have been signed in the place where respondents 1 and 2 have their normal place of business namely Hyderabad. 3. The cause of action for the writ petition arises by the termination of the contract and the action taken by the respondents forfeiting the EMD effected by the petitioner. These are matters that could be adjudicated only by a competent before, having territorial jurisdiction over the respondents, whose actions are impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition would not be maintainable before this Court even under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. 4. I, therefore, decline jurisdiction on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/