(1.) To quash the order dated 22.09.2014, as at Annexure-H, issued by the 1st respondent and asking for a mandamus not to implement the same, this writ petition was filed, by the petitioner, which participated in a tender proceeding, pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 04.02.2014, as at Annexure-B, issued by the 1st respondent, in the matter of supply of various sizes of LT cables at NAC Mumbai. The pre-qualification prescribed in Annexure-B is that the tender must be by the manufacturer or Authorized Dealer of having carried out similar nature of work. Petitioner claiming to be an Authorized Dealer of M/s. Havells India Limited, based on a Certificate dated 25.02.2014, claiming to be fulfilling the eligibility criteria, submitted its tender with the documents. Notice dated 03.09.2014 vide Annexure-F was served on the petitioner and was informed, that M/s. Havells India Limited, to which the Dealership Certificate produced by the petitioner was forwarded for verification, informed that the Dealership Certificate produced has not been issued by it and the petitioner was called upon to clarify on the aspect, latest by 20.09.2014. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted on 17.09.2014 vide Annexure-G, petitioner was served with Annexure-H, that no tender shall be issued to the petitioner by Airports Authority of India for any works in any of the Airports till a final decision is taken by competent Authority of Airports Authority of India in the matter of submission of forged Dealership Certificate. In pursuance of the same, petitioner was served with a communication dated 14.10.2014, as at Annexure-J, returning the DD dated 15.09.2014 of State Bank of Mysore and notifying the circumstance under which the work related to the notified tender could not be issued. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed on 21.10.2014, seeking the reliefs, mentioned supra.
(2.) Since the tender notice vide Annexure-B was issued by the respondent No.1, at Mumbai, in the matter of supply of spare parts for day-to-day maintenance of Juhu Airport, ARSR PHHL Qtrs, Tx. Station, R/R Station and Outer Market, Mumbai during 2014-15 and the impugned decision, as at Annexure-H, was taken at Mumbai and as no part of cause of action has accrued in Karnataka, wherein, the petitioner carries on business, learned advocate was directed to address arguments, in the first instance, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of this writ petition, in this Court.
(3.) Sri Vittala Shetty P., learned advocate, submitted that the petitioner is carrying on business in Bengaluru and that while submitting the tender, a Dealership Certificate, vide Annexure-D, issued at Bengaluru and the Demand Draft purchased at Bengaluru, were submitted to the 1st respondent, so also was the reply vide at Annexure-G to the Notice, as at Annexure-F, and since Annexure-H along with Annexure-J was received by the petitioner at Bengaluru, part of cause of action having been accrued in Bengaluru, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, even though the contesting respondents are having offices at Mumbai and New Delhi.