Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 62 (HP)

RAMESH GUPTA v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

2003-03-26

KAMLESH SHARMA, V.K.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 1685 of 2002 is an Association of transporters-cum-dealers, whereas petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the said petition and petitioners in CWP No. 1390 of 2002 and CWP No. 156 of 2003 are themselves transporters-cum-dealers of respondents 1 to 4 companies, which are engaged in the exploration, refining and distribution of petroleum products, LPG and lubricants. Their preciese grievance is that after opening the price bid on 24.9.2002 they were not invited for negotiations on 21.11.2002 when the transporters-cum-dealers falling in the category of L-l to L-15 rates were called and their bids were accepted. 2. Before contracts could be entered into with the successful bidders by the oil companies, CWP No. 1685 of 2002 was filed and interim order dated 27.11.2002 was passed restraining respondents No. 1 to 4, from placing any work order in favour of those tenderers whose bids were accepted pursuant to the negotiations held on 21.11.2002 for transportation of petroleum products in the State of Himachal Pradesh. By a subsequent order dated 14.2.2003 respondents No. 7 to 14 were impleaded as party respondents, who had participated in the negotiations being within L-l to L-5 rates for Ambala-Leh Ladakh and within L-l to L-15 rates for Ambala to Himachal Pradesh. They also filed reply-affidavits to the writ petitions and prayed for vacation of the stay. Reply-affidavits and rejoinders were also exchanged between respondents 1 and 3 and the petitioners. 3. When we set down the writ petition for admission, learned Counsel for the respondents pressed their preliminary objection that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on this preliminary objection. 4. By now it is well settled that cause of action is a bundle of facts necessary for the purpose of granting relief. Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides that for territorial jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to enable it to issue directions, order or writ to any Government, authority or person notwithstanding that seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within its territory. It is not in dispute that so far the head offices of oil companies, respondents J. to 4 are concerned, these are not situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh but it is of no effect, if from the averments made in the writ petitions it is prima-facie established that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, 5. Before examining the averments made in the writ petitions to find out whether a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, we will refer to the reliefs sought for by the petitioners as only those averments will constitute cause of action which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle them to the said reliefs by this Court. The reliefs sought for in CWP No. 1685 of 2002 are as under : "(i) That the entire tender process initiated after the issuance of Annexure-PA, dated 30th July, 2002, which led to the consideration of credential bids and consequential opening of price bids on 24.9.2002, may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That clause No. 11(c) (iv) of Attachment-3 of the Joint Tender Documents pertaining to the age of the motor vehicle may kindly be quashed and set aside; (iii) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to place on record the work orders issued to the transporters-cum-dealers pursuant to Annexure-PA and thereafter the same may be quashed and set aside; (iv) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to permit the members of the petitioner Association to transport the petroleum products throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh after they are set off at Parwanoo strictly in conformity with the law; (v) That the respondents 5 and 6 may be directed not to permit the plying of trucks/tankers for the transportation of petroleum products in breach of law; (vi) That the respondent No. 5 may be directed to frame a policy strictly in conformity with the provisions of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for giving impetus to trade and industry; (vii) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to place on record the details of the nature of permits held by the transporters to whom the work in question is being allotted." 6. Reliefs sought for in CWP No. 156 of 2003 are almost to the same effect though couched in a different language. So far CWP No. 1390 of 2002 is concerned, the relief sought for in it is limited to quashing letter dated 10.9.2002, Annexure PD whereby petitioners credential bid was rejected on the ground that his oil tankers are more than 15 years old. 7. For seeking these reliefs, the cause of action arose to the petitioner when they submitted their tenders in response to a joint tender notice dated 30.7.2002 published in daily edition of "The Tribune" on 30.7.2002 inviting tenders for transportation of Bulk POL for a period of two years with option for extension upto one year from bulk oil storage terminals/depots in various States to location within the State and also outside the State. In the notice against the State of Himachal Pradesh, Location Ambala-Leh/Parwanoo/Shogi/Channi/Kullu were mentioned and an estimated tank truck requirement as required by respondents No. 1 to 4 is prescribed as under : State Locations Estimated tank truck requirement IOC . BPC HPC IBP H.P. Ambala-Leh 390 0 0 0 Parwanoo/Shogi 180 80 62 7 Channi 0 5 5 0 Kullu 5 5 6 2 8. The tenders were invited under the two bid system i.e., credential bids which were scrutinised on 27th August, 2002 at 1500 hours in the presence of tenderers and price bids which were opened and accepted on 24.9.2002. The case of the petitioners is that during the opening of the price bids, the respondents-oil companies issued notice whereby they unilaterally changed the condition of joint tender notice and gave scope of awarding transportation work to the tenderers who fell within the category of L-l to L-15 rates depriving the petitioners to participate in the negotiations held on -21.11.2002 despite their being ready and willing to do the transportation work at L-l or even lower rates. Further case of the petitioner is that while accepting the price bids of the various participants, respondents-oil companies have not taken into consideration that as per Rule 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, a vehicle is not required to pick up or set down the goods between two points situated in the same State other than the home State, as such, the transporters having national permits can only transport the petroleum product from Ambala to Parwanoo and similarly transporters holding permits of neighboring States, such as Haryana or Punjab or Jammu and Kashmir cannot operate within the State of Himachal Pradesh without getting their permits countersigned from the State Transport Authority. As per the allegations of the petitioners those transporters whose bids have been accepted are having either national permits or permits of States other than the State of Himachal Pradesh. 9. The petitioners have also assailed clause 5 of Part-A and Clause 1 of Part-C of Attachment-3 to the Joint Tender Document, Annexure P-3 to CWP No. 156 of 2003 being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. After going through the averments made in the writ petitions, we can without any hesitation hold that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of Himachal Pradesh. Notice inviting tenders was published in the daily edition of "The Tribune" at Chandigarh. As per the tender notice, the tender forms could be obtained on payment of Rs. 1,000 from the respective offices of the oil companies as given in the tender notice. Tender forms for locations Ambala-Leh/Ambala/Parwanoo/Shogi/Channi/Kullu of all the four companies were made available from their respective offices situated either at Chandigarh or at Ambala outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. The tenders were required to be put in tender boxes provided for respective State Locations of each Oil Company which are also outside Himachal Pradesh. The earnest money was "required to be deposited by Demand Draft drawn on any scheduled bank payable at said respective State Locations. As per the schedule, the credential bids were opened and price bids were accepted and thereafter negotiations were held with the successful bidders at locations, admittedly, out side the State of Himachal Pradesh. 11. The earnest money was "required to be deposited by Demand Draft drawn on any scheduled bank payable at said respective State Locations. As per the schedule, the credential bids were opened and price bids were accepted and thereafter negotiations were held with the successful bidders at locations, admittedly, out side the State of Himachal Pradesh. 11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the petroleum products are set down at Parwanoo and thereafter transported to other destinations in Himachal Pradesh this Court has the jurisdiction, is wholly misconceived. In its reply-affidavit respondent No. 1 has clarified that the Indian Oil Corporation Depot/Terminals receive product either through tank wagons or through pipelines. In order to supply products in Himachal Pradesh, the nearest pipeline terminal is Ambala which is in the State of Haryana. To cater to the demand of retail outlets/consumers on the basis of economic viability, a small depot is set up at Parwanoo to receive products by road since no pipeline exists there. The product is loaded at Ambala in tank trucks where the ultimate destination is not known. Parwanoo depot receives the products from Ambala terminal and thereafter the product is sold through various retail outlets as specified in the sale documents which are generated at Parwanoo. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the product is set down or unloaded at Parwanoo depot is not correct. Otherwise also, we are of the view that law will take care if there is violation of Rule 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 or any other provision of law. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that petroleum products are set down at Parwanoo, it does not constitute a part of cause of action for the purpose of granting reliefs sought for by the petitioners. 12. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and another, (2001) 9 SCC 525, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is of no help to them as it is on its own facts. 12. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and another, (2001) 9 SCC 525, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is of no help to them as it is on its own facts. On the other hand, in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majitha v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2000) 7 SCC 640, the learned Judges have considered their earlier judgments in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basil, (1994) 4 SCC 711; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 and H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited, (2000) 2 SCC 202, and many others on the question of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, to reiterate that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour, but such a wide interpretation does not mean that insignificant event connected with the cause of action taking place within the territorial limits, will give jurisdiction to the High Court. 13. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basil (supra) the facts of which case are nearer to the case in hand, even the location of the registered office of the petitioner-company at Calcutta; publication of the advertisement inviting tenders, submission of the tenders, representation by the petitioner-company from Calcutta and receipt of the communication of the decision rejecting the representation at Calcutta were not considered enough to constitute a part of cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta for deciding the dispute of rejection of tenders which were communicated at New Delhi, scrutinised by the Tender Committee and rejected at New Delhi and head office of the company inviting tenders is at Dehradun. A note of caution has been sounded by the learned Judges in the following terms: ".....if an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however, trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation." 14. In a recent Division Bench judgment of this in Tibetan Administrations Welfare Society v. Union of India and others, Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 104, the learned Judges have also reiterated that location of registered office of the petitioner-trust is hardly relevant for deciding the territorial jurisdiction and since the action which was sought to be challenged by the petitioner-trust was taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Siliguri, West Bengal against Hotel Tibet at Gangtok which may be the sole unit of the petitioner-trust having its head office at Dharamshala no part of cause of action had arisen within the territory of this Court. 15. Therefore, finding merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents, we hold that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petitions and these are dismissed as not maintainable. CMP Nos. 2501, 2712 of 2002 and 169 and 304 of 2003. No orders in view of the order passed in the main matters. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the applications are disposed of. Writ dismissed.