Writ petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction despite local coal transportation operations

The Bombay HC Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging extension of bid submission deadline for coal transportation tender. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction lay with Mumbai, not Nagpur, as the tender process was conducted from respondent's Mumbai Head Office. Despite petitioner downloading tender documents from Nagpur and coal transportation occurring within Nagpur's territorial limits, no part of cause of action arose at Nagpur. The Court emphasized that only facts with nexus to the dispute establish cause of action for territorial jurisdiction, disposing of the petition without entertaining it on merits.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to tender floated by respondent for Raw Coal transportation against RCR Allocation from specific mines to Thermal Power Stations. Territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a tender floated by the respondent for Raw Coal transportation against Road-cum-Rail (RCR) Allocation from specific mines to Thermal Power Stations. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench to entertain the petition. The E-Tender document was published from the Head Office of the respondent in Mumbai, requiring online registration, sale, and submission of bids. The respondent argued that since the entire tender process, evaluation, and reverse bidding were conducted online through the Head Office in Mumbai, no cause of action arose in Nagpur to challenge the tender.

The petitioner contended that part of the cause of action arose in Nagpur as it had downloaded and submitted the E-Tender document from there. Reference was made to specific clauses of the bid document to support this claim. The petitioner also highlighted a previous writ petition where the Court allowed offline submission due to technical issues. The petitioner argued that since some Thermal Power Stations were within the Nagpur Bench's jurisdiction, the petition should be entertained on merits. Legal precedents were cited to distinguish previous judgments and support the petitioner's position.

An applicant intervening in the proceedings supported the respondent's objection, emphasizing the lack of pleadings demonstrating how the cause of action arose in Nagpur. After hearing all parties, the Court found that no part of the cause of action originated within the Nagpur Bench's territorial limits. The Court noted the absence of essential pleadings indicating the basis for invoking the Nagpur Bench's jurisdiction. It was emphasized that even though the petitioner's office was in Nagpur, mere submission of online bid documents from there was insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The Court further analyzed the E-Tender process, highlighting that all significant steps were conducted at the respondent's Head Office in Mumbai. The extension of bid submission time, a key issue in the petition, occurred in Mumbai, not in Nagpur. The Court concluded that the cause of action did not arise in Nagpur based on a thorough review of the petition and the tender document. Even if a part of the cause of action was found to be in Nagpur, the Court invoked the doctrine of 'Forum Conveniens' to reject entertaining the petition, considering the evaluation location and convenience. Ultimately, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the absence of any cause of action in Nagpur and disposed of the case, allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdiction.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the judgment, including the challenge to the tender process, the arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction, and the Court's reasoning for declining to entertain the petition.

---