Writ Petition Not Maintainable Unless Part Of Cause Of Action Arises Within Territorial Jurisdiction Of Concerned HC: Calcutta High Court
On 08.09.2025, the High Court at Calcutta dismissed a writ petition challenging a 'Proprietary' tender floated by the Panipat Refinery of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in the GeM portal.
The Petitioner, who has its office in Kolkata, had filed the writ petition challenging a proprietary tender (bid being limited to only one bidder) floated by IOCL's Panipat Refinery for spare parts of pump.
It was contended by the writ petitioner that the entire bid was an eye wash as IOCL had already named the bidder which was in violation of CVC Guidelines and was also non-inclusive unlike similar tenders in the market.
A preliminary objection on the point of maintainability was raised by Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Barrister & Senior Counsel, appearing for IOCL. It was submitted by Ms. Meharia that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The tender being floated by Panipat refinery of IOCL was for supply of spares parts in Panipat Refinery which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Reliance was placed on judgement passed by Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 25899 of 2025 and W.M.P No. 29127 of 2025 decision in M/s Swan Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, where a tender being floated by Panipat Refinery was challenged and it was held by the High Court at Madras that no cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction pf High Court at Madras and the writ petition was dismissed.
Per contra, it was argued by Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner that the ambit of the writ petition was not limited to the tender but the affectation of writ petitioner's right within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to maintain the writ Petition.
Upon consideration of arguments, Justice Amrita Sinha of the High Court at Calcutta was pleased to dismiss the writ petition while observing that there was nothing on record to show that similar clauses restricting the tender to only one bidder was floated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Also, a similar issue was already decided by the Madras High Court. The Court was of the opinion that the writ petitioner does not have any cause of action to maintain the writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta - integral part of the cause of action, that is, the tender document was floated and was for IOCL refinery at Panipat which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of High Court at Calcutta and that only because the tender has been floated online and the right of the petitioner to participate in the tender process is allegedly infringed within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Court, will not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon Calcutta High Court to entertain the writ petition.
Advocate for Writ Petitioner: Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sucheta Mitra and Ms. Sanjana Shaw, Advocates
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (IOCL) – Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Barrister & Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Meharia, Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Rohan Raj and Mr. Tamoghna Chattopadhyay, Advocates (MCO Legals – Meharia & Company).
Advocate for Respondent no 2 (Union of India) – Mr. Sukumar Chattacharya and Ms. S Sha, Advocates