IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9815 of 2001 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.JAYASURYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.V.SIVAIAH The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9815 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is a public limited company incorporation under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered oﬃce at Hyderabad. The company is engaged in printing business and has been statedly authorized by the Reserve Bank of India to print security documents for banks like cheques, demand drafts, bonds, share certiﬁcates, lottery tickets etc. It has widespread clientele in diﬀerent States in India. The respondent herein, namely, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), Lucknow, entrusted the petitioner with the work of printing 80 lakhs blank ticket books and 1,40,000 way bill pads for their use. The total value of the work is about Rs.2,18,24,000/-. The petitioner statedly executed the work and eﬀected supplies. Subsequent thereto in response to an allegation that there is short supply, the petitioner made good by supplying additional blank ticket books. However, some of the amounts were not paid to the petitioner by UPSRTC, allegedly a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- was not paid. The respondent again invited tenders in September, 1997. The petitioner’s oﬀer was accepted for printing 72,00,000 blank ticket books and 1,05,300 way bills. Purchase orders were placed. The petitioner completed supplies but an outstanding amount of Rs.38,29,000/- was not paid. It appears that persistent eﬀorts of the petitioner to claim the outstanding bills lead to an enquiry ordered by the Government of Uttar Pradesh into the allegations against the petitioner that fraud was played while supplying the material by alleged use of less 60 GSM paper in violation of the purchase order. Coming to know that the respondent was intending to cancel the contract, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.4006 of 1998. This Court disposed of said writ petition on 17.03.1998 directing the respondent to complete the enquiry within six months. A notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted explanation. After conducting enquiry, it was communicated to the petitioner’s managing director that heavy ﬁnancial loss and misappropriation of Government funds was resorted to since petitioner used paper of sub-standard GSM and did not use anti-wash device. At that stage the present writ petition is ﬁled assailing the oﬃce memorandum dated 08.05.2000 informing the petitioner that it is black listed for printing tickets/route papers pertaining to UPSRTC. At the very outset preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for UPSRTC. The objection is with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. Reliance is placed on decisions of apex Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Union of India[1] and Alchemist Limited v State Bank of Sikkim[2]. In both the decisions it has been held that unless and until cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of a High Court of judicature, such Court cannot have jurisdiction to issue writs or orders. Filing of tenders from Hyderabad, printing of tickets and way bills at Hyderabad and preparation of bills from Hyderabad do not themselves constitute “part of cause of action” within the territorial limits of this Court. Admittedly UPSRTC issued tenders from Lucknow, ﬁnalized tenders at Lucknow and agreement was also entered into at Lucknow. Therefore, the disputes in relation to such contract fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh and not in Andhra Pradesh. A person invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the State of Andhra Pradesh has to show that at least small fraction of cause of action accrued within jurisdiction of this Court. The execution of work here intended for Uttar Pradesh by itself does not amount to cause of action within territorial limits of this Court. I n Alchemist (supra), after reviewing entire case law on the subject, apex Court laid down as under. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a 'part of cause of action', nothing less than that. Applying the ratio laid down by apex Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it must be held that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In view of this it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. It shall be open to the petitioner to seek redresal in appropriate forum. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 04th November, 2008 GHN [1] (2004) 6 SCC 254 [2] AIR 2007 SC 1812