IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2098 of 2010 (M/S) M/s Daksh Enterprises Ltd. ……Petitioner. Versus Plant Manager at Madanpur Bottling LPG Plant (IOCL) …….Respondent. Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, Advocate for the petitoner. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, counsel for the respondent. Dated:-23-12-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of canceling the tender where the petitioner was declared as the L-1 party and was to be awarded the work. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to not to allow the stay effect on the operation of the fresh tender released. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature of circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner-Daksh 2 Enterprises Ltd. was not allowed to participate in tender (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) process. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that as the cause of action has arisen in the State of U.P., therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner company is having its head office at Haridwar and therefore, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court. Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides jurisdiction at the place of defendants residence and not at the place of plaintiffs residence. Therefore, the argument is misconceived. I have perused Section 20 of C.P.C. It deals with territorial jurisdiction of courts and it provides that suits are to be instituted where defendant resides or cause of action arises. Therefore, in view of the fact that the cause of action in the instant case has arisen in State of U.P. and the respondent is established in the State of U.P., therefore, this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (B.S.Verma, J.) 23-12-2010 S 3