Territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens barred Delhi High Court writ where the main dispute was centered in Maharashtra.

In a writ challenge involving orders passed by a State Government and a revisional authority, the Delhi HC held that the mere situs of the revisional authority was not enough to establish maintainable territorial jurisdiction. The court applied the principles of territorial nexus and forum conveniens, noting that the principal order arose from Maharashtra, the dispute related to mineral concession proceedings there, and most affected applicants were outside Delhi. To avoid conflicting decisions and forum shopping, the petition was declined in Delhi, and the petitioner was left to approach the High Court with the more direct territorial connection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the Delhi High Court in view of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens where the impugned orders included an order of the State Government of Maharashtra and an order of the Revisional Authority situated in Delhi.

Analysis: The availability of a part of the cause of action at the place of the Revisional Authority was not treated as the sole or decisive factor. The determining consideration was whether the Delhi High Court was the convenient forum in the overall factual setting, especially where the principal order under challenge was that of the State Government of Maharashtra, the dispute substantially related to mineral concession proceedings in Maharashtra, and numerous affected applicants were located outside Delhi. The principle that the binding effect of a High Court's decision ordinarily operates within its territorial jurisdiction, together with the risk of conflicting decisions and forum shopping in matters involving authorities exercising jurisdiction over several States, was applied to hold that the situs of the revisional authority was not, by itself, sufficient to confer a practical and appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable before the Delhi High Court and was declined on the ground of forum conveniens and lack of a suitable territorial nexus for adjudication in Delhi.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to seek relief before the appropriate High Court having a more direct territorial connection with the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge to orders of authorities exercising jurisdiction over several States, the situs of the revisional or appellate authority does not by itself determine the proper High Court; the court must consider territorial nexus and forum conveniens so as to avoid conflicting outcomes and forum shopping.

---