JUDGMENT : The petitioner before this Court is a limited company incorporated in Japan. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (from hereinafter referred to as the ONGC) is an Indian oil and natural gas company with its Headquarter at Dehradun and Registered Office at Delhi. It is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, fully under the control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 2. ONGC, which is the respondent in the writ petition, floated three global tenders for procuring certain materials/supplies. The petitioner company was one of the bidders. Out of the three tenders, two tenders were admittedly floated from the Materials Management Department of ONGC, Regional Stores, Baroda Office for procurement of slips on 28.09.2013 and for procurement of hydraulic power casing on 12.10.2013. The third tender was floated by the Corporate Material Management Department of ONGC, Delhi Office for procurement of “Kellys” on 03.12.2013. 3. The petitioner was one of the Companies who responded to the aforesaid tenders and subsequently applied. ONGC had doubts regarding the veracity of certain documents supplied by the petitioner and it sought clarification earlier, and later gave a show cause notice dated 12.05.2014 to the petitioner. The show cause notice was given to the petitioner from the office of General Manager (M), Drilling Services, Mumbai Office, India. The notice states that the petitioner had given false and fabricated documents and therefore why should it not be banned from doing any further business with ONGC. The reply was given by the petitioner which was not found to be satisfactory and subsequently vide order dated 30.07.2014 which was again passed from the Mumbai Office, the petitioner was banned from having any business dealing with ONGC. It is this order which has been passed from the Mumbai Office has presently been challenged. 4. This Court at the present juncture is not going into the legality, truthfulness or the validity of the allegations or on the merit of the case of the petitioner. It is purely now on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, as this has been raised as a preliminary issue by the ONGC. 5. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment as to what cause of action or even part of cause of action arose in the territory of Uttarakhand. It is purely now on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, as this has been raised as a preliminary issue by the ONGC. 5. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment as to what cause of action or even part of cause of action arose in the territory of Uttarakhand. Amazingly, the only party petitioner has impleaded as respondent before this Court is ONGC, Head Office, Tel Bhavan, Dehradun. There is no other party before this Court including ONGC, Baroda Office or ONGC, Mumbai Office, who have actually passed the impugned orders. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 21.08.2014 granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner, which reads as under: “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, meanwhile, operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stay. Financial bid of the petitioner shall be considered provisionally subject to the outcome of the present writ petition.” 7. It appears that ONGC after putting its appearance raised the question of jurisdiction and consequently the order dated 21.08.2014 was slightly modified by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 02.12.2014 which reads as under: “Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly contended that if tender documents were not found in order, respondents were well within their jurisdiction to reject the bid of the petitioner, however, banning order against the petitioner ought not have been passed without verifying as to whether supporting documents with the bid documents were issued by the authorities of Dubai or China. He contends that in the present petition, this Court should examine only the correctness and legality of the banning order, and he is not pressing for any Mandamus for consideration of his bid on the basis of the documents already submitted by the petitioner. He further contended that as per Office Circular dated 14.08.1996, Annexure No. 15 to the counter affidavit, banning order requires approval of the Headquarter situated at Dehradun. Further contends that in consequence of the banning order, petitioner is debarred from participating in any tender process issued by any site office of ONGC, therefore, petitioner can file this writ petition before this Court impleading the Headquarter situated at Dehradun as party respondent. On the other hand, Mr. Further contends that in consequence of the banning order, petitioner is debarred from participating in any tender process issued by any site office of ONGC, therefore, petitioner can file this writ petition before this Court impleading the Headquarter situated at Dehradun as party respondent. On the other hand, Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that Corporate/Registered Office of ONGC is at Delhi and after the Circular of 1996, Annexure No. 15 to the counter affidavit, another circular got to be issued transferring the Headquarter from Dehradun to Delhi, therefore, approval of the banning order is always issued by the Delhi office; thus, writ petition ought to have been filed before Delhi High Court. In view of the statement recorded hereinbefore, interim order dated 21.08.2014 stands modified to the effect that operation and effect of the impugned banning order shall remain stayed till further orders. However, financial bid of the petitioner need not be considered if his technical bid has already been rejected. Mr. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, seeks and is granted two weeks’ time to file supplementary affidavit demonstrating as to when Headquarter of ONGC was shifted from Dehradun to Delhi and as to whether banning order was ever approved by the Headquarter, and if yes, location of the Headquarter. On the joint request, list on 22.12.2014.” 8. Later, when the matter came up for hearing, the following order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.06.2015, which reads as under :- “Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, Advocate with Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties have contended that interim order dated 21.8.2014 was modified vide order dated 2.12.2014. Admit. List in usual course. Question of territorial jurisdiction can be raised at the time of final arguments.” 9. Since the preliminary objections of ONGC regarding territorial jurisdiction were to be heard only at the stage of final arguments, ONGC filed a special appeal before a Division Bench of this Court against the order dated 18.06.2015 being Special Appeal No. 337 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the special appeal vide its order dated 31.07.2015 with the following observations: “2. It is apparent that the impugned decision is an interlocutory order. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the special appeal vide its order dated 31.07.2015 with the following observations: “2. It is apparent that the impugned decision is an interlocutory order. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this is a case, where the Uttarakhand High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rakesh Thapliyal would point out that the impugned decision was issued from Bombay. He complains that the writ petition is still filed not impleading the Authority, which issued the impugned decision. He says that even no part of cause of action arises within the State of Uttarakhand. We notice that the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding as such. No doubt, he has passed an interim order against the respondent. In the circumstances, when we notice essentially that it is an interlocutory order, we refrain ourselves from interfering. We only request the learned Single Judge to take up the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction and decide the matter at the earliest. 6. The appeal stands disposed of.” 10. Before a Court of law, cause of action has by now acquired a definite and settled meaning. In short, cause of action is a bundle of facts which must be gathered from the pleadings itself. In the entire pleadings of the petitioner, there is not even a whisper as to what cause of action, or even a part of cause of action arose in the territory of Uttarakhand. It was only during arguments before the learned Single Judge (from what can be gathered from the interim order dated 02.12.2014), that an argument was made by the petitioner and a part of cause of action was being established, on grounds of Office Circular dated 14.08.1996, which was Annexure No. 15 to the counter affidavit, where it is said that a banning order requires approval of the Headquarter situated at Dehradun. The learned counsel for the ONGC, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, however, has clearly denied that the banning order has to be approved by the Headquarter at Dehradun. He further states that only in order to make these orders centralized, a copy is to be sent to the Headquarter but no approval is required. The learned counsel for the ONGC, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, however, has clearly denied that the banning order has to be approved by the Headquarter at Dehradun. He further states that only in order to make these orders centralized, a copy is to be sent to the Headquarter but no approval is required. In any case, the burden was entirely upon the petitioner to prove that any part of cause of action has arisen in the territory of Uttarakhand. He has failed to discharge his liability. The relevant portion of the Office Circular dated 14.08.1996 relied upon by the petitioner reads as under: “4. All concerned are requested to note that banning of business dealings with the firms is centralized with Headquarters. Any proposal for banning business dealings is required to be referred along with. All relevant documents through proper channel for obtaining approval of competent authority.” 11. Another order which has been annexed by the respondent as Annexure 15 is Circular dated 30.05.2006, where the subject is “Processing of cases for putting the erring firms on holiday/banning”, which is issued from ONGC Office, Tel Bhavan, Dehradun, where a broad guideline regarding banning of a firm has been given, which says that “A copy of such banning/holiday order shall also be sent to Incharge-PMC, Shed No. 6, Tel Bhavan, Dehradun, along with the copies of initial approval for initiation of banning proceedings by concerned Director and final approval for banning of the firm by C&MD for uploading data in MM website”. 12. Both the circulars have been perused. The contention of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for ONGC appears to be correct. What ONGC primarily states is that copy of all the banning orders must be sent to the office at Dehradun. Nothing more than this can be made out either from the office circular dated 14.08.1996 or from the later circular dated 30.05.2006, which are all part of record. 13. In any case, the petitioner has not made out any case of jurisdiction in Uttarakhand, before this High Court, by referring to any order in his petition. The burden was upon the petitioner to plead and make out a case for territorial jurisdiction, particularly when no orders were passed by the authorities in Dehradun. 13. In any case, the petitioner has not made out any case of jurisdiction in Uttarakhand, before this High Court, by referring to any order in his petition. The burden was upon the petitioner to plead and make out a case for territorial jurisdiction, particularly when no orders were passed by the authorities in Dehradun. Amazingly, the authorities who have actually passed banning orders i.e. ONGC office at Baroda and Mumbai, have not been made a party in the present writ petition. No reasonable explanation has come forward from the counsel of the petitioner as to this non joinder of necessary parties. 14. From the records, it is absolutely clear that tenders were floated by Baroda Office of ONGC and thereafter the proceedings to ban the petitioner company were initiated by Mumbai Office and ultimately banning order was also passed by the Mumbai Office. No cause of action, or even part of cause of action arose in the territory of Uttarakhand. Therefore, it is the considered view of this Court that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the writ petition, which is only on the basis of territorial jurisdiction, should not be read as any comment on the merit of the case either of the petitioner or the respondent. 15. All the interim orders, including the interim orders dated 21.08.2014, 02.12.2014 and 18.06.2015 shall stand vacated.