% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on October i o , 2008 WP(C)No.9348/2007. Shaheed Satyavir Singh Filling Station & Anr. Through Versus Union of India & Ors. Through Petitioners Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. Respondents Mr. Mukesh Anand & Mr. Shailesh Tiwary, Advs. for respondent no.l. Mr. Saran Suri and Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advs. for respondent no.2. Mr. Rajan Narain & Ms. Sneha Malik, Advs. for respondent no.3. Mr. Alok Vagreehe, Adv. for respondent no.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowedto see the Judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI. I : For Orders see WP(C)No.9629/2007. October/o, 2008 WP(C)No.9348/2007 G.S.SISTANI (JUDGE ) Page 1 of 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified «' tN THE HIGH COURTQF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No. 9629/3007 JUDGMENTSPRONOUNCEDON: October Anil Kumar , p +-• • Through : Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate Versus Union of India and Others Through ;Mr. MukeshAnand&Mr. ShaileshS^^ Advocates for respondent no. 2 W.P. (C) No. 7910^2007 R.A. Nariman&Co. (P) Ltd. . pg.-.- Through •" Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,AdvocatT'^ Versus Union of India and Others doc ^ 4. •Through : Mr. M. M. Kaira,Advocatefor R- 2 ^ ^ W.P. (C) No. 64/2QQR Bhinga Petroleum Petitione Through ; Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate Versus -Union of India and Others . ... Resoonri t- Through •Mr. Rajan Narain&Ms. Sudha Malla, Adv. W.P. (C) No. 8577/2007 MadhurFillingStation . Petition Through :Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate^"" Versus Union of India and Others Resoondenfc;' Through :Mr. MukeshAnand&Mr. ShaileshTiwary, Advocates for respondents no. 1 &2 W.P. (C) No. 9629/2007and Others Page1of10 V •Jk c?' Mr. Rajan Narain & Ms. Sneha Malik, Advocates for respondent no. 3 • Mr. Alok Vagrfeehe, Advocate for R-5 , (5) W.P. CO No. 591/2008 MahalaxmiFilling Station •••• ' Petitioner Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate Versus Union of India and Others •••• Respondents Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand &Mr. ShaileshTiwary, Advocates for respondents no. 1 & 2 Mr. Rajan Narain & Ms. Sneha Malik, Advocates for respondent no. 3 Mr. Alok Vagreehe, Advocate for R.-5 (6) W.P. (C) No. 9348/2007 Shaheed SatyavirSingh FillingStation .... Petitioner, Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate Versus Union of India and Others •••• Respondents Through ; Mr. Mukesh Anand St Mr. Shailesh T'wary, ' Advocates for respondents no. 1 Mr. Saran Suri and Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocates for respondent no. 2 Mr. Rajan Narain & Ms. Sneha Malik; •Advocates for respondent no. 3 Mr. Alok Vagreehe, Advocate for R-5 (7) W.P. (C) No. 375/2008 U.P. Petroleum Traders Association (Regd.) .... Petitioner Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate Versus Union of India and Others , •••• Respondents Through ; Mr. Mukesh Anand & Mr. Shailesh Tiwary, Advocates for respondents no. 1 & 2 W.P. (C) No. 9629/2007and Others Page2of10 Q •./ o W.P„ (C) No. 523/2008 Petitioner Kisan Fillingcentre . chandrashel<har,Advocate . Versus .... Respondents Union of Mukesh Anand S( Mr. ShaileshTiwary, Advocates for respondents no. 1 Mr. Anil KunnarBatra, Advocatefor R-2 „jgj • W.P. (C) No- 102/2008. Petitioner Gokulesh Chandrashekhar,Advocate Versus .... Respondents Union . jv],-. oalip Mehra ^ Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mislira, Advocatesfor respondents no. 1 Mr. Saran Suri, Advocatefor R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTSCE G.S. SSSTA5S81 1. Wlietherreportersof local papers may be allowedto see the Judgment? 2. To be referredto the Reporteror not? 3. WhethertheJudgmentshould be reportedin the Digest? SISTANL 1. , , 1. . Whetherframing of a delegated legislationor issuanceof an • executiveorder or instructionwould conferjurisdictionupon a Court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof?This question of law, alreadywell-settledby the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, has yet again reverberatedin W.P. (C)No. 9629/2007and Others. ^ (1 this batch of nine writ petitionsthat shaii be disposed off fay • this-common order. . ' • , 2. inasmuch as this judgmentshaii address only the preliminary challenge of territorialjurisdictionmade by the respondents, the specificfacts leadingto each of the presentnine petitions need not be delved upon in extenso. Suffice for us to l<now that the petitionersherein are dealers of leading pubiic^sector oil companies and are running retail outlet/petrolpumps in variousdistrictsof Uttar Pradesh. The petitionersare primarily aggrieved by the suspension of sale and supply by the respondent oil companies pursuant to an inspection carried out by,the respondentsat the respectivepetrol pumps/retail outlets of the petitioners. Inter alia, it is alleged that the respondentscarried out the inspectionwithout conformingto • the sampling procedure as prescribed in the Marl<eting Discipline Guidelines 2005. The collective'grievance-ofthe petitionersis also that their retail outlets/ petrol pumps have been suspended without serving a show cause notice and without verifyingthe true and correct facts. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in their preliminary challenge to the present petitions, have stoutly argued that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdictionof this Court. It is contendedthat ail petitioners herein have been carrying out their business of running their respectiveretail outlets/petrolpumps in the variousdistrictsof Uttar Pradesh, the impugned inspectionswere carried out at the petitioners'retail outlets/petrolpumps in Uttar Pradesh, W.P. (C)No. 9629/2007and Others Page4of 10 which falls beyond the territorialjurisdictionof this Court and the impugned orders suspending sale and supply were also issued by the respondentsfrom Uttar Pradesh, It is thus the case of the respondentsthat inasmuchas not asingle part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdictionto try and entertainthis petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the counter affidavitfiled. Relevant portion with regard to the issue of jurisdictionreads as under; "it has been held by the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd,,and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 126 that the facts pleaded in the writ petition clearly show that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the facts which have no bearing with the 11s of the dispute . involved in the case do not give rise to cause of • • " action so as to confirnnthe territorialjurisdictionon the Court concerned. Article 226(2) of the Constitutionof India which speal<s of the territorial jurisdictionof the High Court reads .- "The power'conferred by clause (1) to issue directions,-orders or writs to any/government authorityor person nnay also be exercised by any High Court exercisingjurisdictionin relationto the territorieswithin which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstandingthat the seat of such government or authorityor the residenceof such person is not within those territories." •' W^P. (C)No. 9629/2007and Others 5of 10 It is clear from the above constitutionalprovision that,a High Court can exercise the jurisdictionin relationto the territorieswithin which the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. This provision in • the Constitutionhas come up for considerationin a number of cases before'thisCouri;. In this regard, it would sufficefor us to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas CommissionVs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors, {1994 4see 711 at 713} whereinit was held: "Under Article 226 a High Court can exercisethe power to Issue directions,orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by part 111 of the Constitutionor for any other purpose If the cause of action, wholly or m part, had arisen within the territoriesin relationto which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding thatthe seatof the Governmentor authorityor the residence of the person against whom the direction,order or writ Is Issued Is not within the said territories. The expression"cause of action' means that bundle of facts the petitioner must prove, if traversed,to entitlehim to ajudgmentin his favour by the Court:: Therefore,in determining the objection of lack of territorialjurisdictionthe Court must take all the facts pleaded in supportof the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctnessor otherwise of the said facts. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwiseof the averments made In the petitionbeing immaterial." Page 6 of 10 W.P. (C)No, 9629/2007and Others ; . V/' It.ls seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court^to entertain a writ petitionor aspecialcivil applicationas in this case, • the High Court must be' satisfiedfrom the entire facts pleadedin supportof the cause of actionthat those facts do constitute a cause so ' as to empowerthe court to decide a dispute which has at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and • • every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto, lead to the -• conclusionthat those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevancewith the list that is involved in the ca^e. Facts that have no bearing with the lis or the disputeinvolvedin the case, do not give rise .to a cause of action so as to confer territorial .jurisdictionon the Court concerned. If we apply , this^ principlethen we see that none of the facts iV; 'pleaded in paragraph 16 of the petitioner,in our i • opinion, fall into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which would confer territorial jurisdictionon the courtsat New Delhi. 5, In responseto the challengemade by the respondentsto the maintainabilityof the present petition before tints Court, it is vehementlyargued by learnedcounselfor the petitionersthat the cause of action for filing the presentpetitionhas arisen in Delhi inasmuch as the respondent oil companies are contemplatingtheir decision to terminatethe dealershipsof • petitionerson the basis of two orders [Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and W.P. (C)No. 9629/2007and Others ''^8®' r 6. prevention of Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of 2005, and The Motor Spiritand High Speed Diesel (Regulationof Supply, Distributionand Preventionof Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of 2007] which were issuedat Delhi. It is thus contendedthat inasmuchas the ordersIn questionhave been issuedat Delh,, this court has territorialjurisdictionto try and enterta,nth,s matter. 1 I IQLL^I . ,have heard learned counsel for both parties at length who havetaken me throughthe variousdocumentsfiled on record. Let us first look at how the presentpetitionsjustifythis Court; having jurisdiction to entertain the present petitions. For felicity of reference, the relevant paragraphs of the Writ petitionbearingW.P. (C) NO. are culledout as under: "55 That the Hon'ble court has the jurisdictionto : entdrtalnthe present petition as both the contro orders namely The Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices)AmendmentOrder o y 2005 and the Motor spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation-of Supply, Distributionand Prevention •of Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of 2007 have been issued/notified/gazettedby respondent no. l/iviinistryat New Delhi. 56 That the petitioneris challengingthe a ' , inspection,searchand seizurebeing carriedout by the respondents no. 2&3 on the basis of the control orders namely. The Motor spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Preventionof Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of 2005 and the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of ' . Page 8 of 10 W.P. (C) No. 9629/2007and Others 7. f t •S 8. 2007, therefore also this Hon'ble court has the jurisdictionto entertainthe presentmatter." ,t is no longer res integra that for the purpose of deeding constituteacause of action,one has to considerwhethersuch • facts constitutea material or integral part of the cause of ^ action, indisputedly,all petitionersherein have been carrying out their respectiveretail outlet/petrolpump businessin Uttar Pradesh.It is also not In disputethat the impugnedinspection was carried out by the respondents at the petitioners respective outlets in Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the suspensionorder of the Sale and Supply was passed by the respondents and the respective replies thereto.by the petitionerswere both made in Uttar Pradesh. In view of the undisputedfactual matrix leading to the present petition, ,t would not be incorrect for this Court to assume that a substantialportion of the cause of action in the presentcase has arisen in Uttar Pradeshwhich is beyondthe jurisdictionof ' this court. Merely by statingthat as action by the respondents is likely to be taken on the basis of the Motor Spiritand High speed Diesel (Regulation.of Supply,' Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of 2005, and the Motor Spiritand High Speed Diesel (Regulationof Supply, Distributionand Preventionof Malpractices)AmendmentOrder of 2007, which have been 'issued at Delhi, by itself cannot conferjurisdictionto this Court. W.P. (C)No.9629/2007and Others Page 9 of 10 / J 9. The ,Apex Court in the leading case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys'Ltd. V. Union of India and Anr^ and in a catena of decisionsthereafter has unequivocallyopined that "[sjitus of office of the Parliament,Legislatureof a State or authorities empoweredto make subordinatelegislationwould not by itself constituteany cause of action"^.In view of the settledposition of law,, the stand taken by the petitioners cannot be countenanced.Merely becausethe impugned Motor Spirit and •High Speed Diesel have been issued at Delhi, cannot by itself clothe this Court with jurisdiction to entertain the present petitions on nnerits, when all events leading to filing of the present petitions,that is, the impugned inspectionsand the suspension orders passed thereafter, and also the retail outlets/petrolpumps of. the petitionersbeing situate in Uttar Pradesh,are outsidethe territorialjurisdictionof this Court. 10. Thus, in view of the settled position of law, at least insofaras f the presentpetitionsare concerned,I declineto entertainthe ^ presentpetitions,leaving it to the petitionersto approachthe jurisdictional High Court. , • /;t- G.S. SiSTANl, J. October/-^2008 'ssn MIR 2.004 SC 2321 ^ id. at para 25 W.P. (C) No. 9629/2007,and Others Page 10 of 10