Forum non conveniens and territorial jurisdiction: writ petition restored for decision on merits despite available jurisdiction.

A High Court may possess territorial jurisdiction yet still decline to entertain a writ petition on forum non conveniens grounds, but that discretion must be exercised with regard to the case facts and not as a mere convenience-based refusal. In this dispute under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the proceedings had originated in Haryana and the parties were substantially located at Faridabad, even though the Appellate Tribunal was in Delhi. The Supreme Court set aside the refusal to entertain the writ petition on convenience grounds and restored the writ proceedings for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens despite having territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute arose from proceedings under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the impugned orders were challenged before the Delhi High Court because the Appellate Tribunal was located in Delhi. The parties, however, were substantially situated at Faridabad in Haryana, and the proceedings under the Act had originated there. The Court held that while territorial jurisdiction may have been available, the High Court had declined to entertain the matter only on convenience grounds. In those circumstances, the proper course was to restore the writ proceedings for decision on merits.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for disposal on merits in favour of the appellant.

---