VIJAY FERTILIZERS PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition, inter alia, are for the release of withheld payment of concession of an allegedly 'undisputed' amount of Rs. 3,82,13,900/- and disputed amount of Rs. 1,02,97,8007- to the petitioner, together with interest and costs. These amounts are principally in the nature of a subsidy which is granted for the sale and supply of fertilizer. In 1999 the Government of India had set up an inquiry and directed the Central Investigating Department, U.P. to submit its Report in this context. It was found that the petitioner's unit had been closed in 1999; and the land, building, plant, machinery and other assets were sold in that year itself. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that the respondents' Officers verified and approved the sale and distribution of fertilizer manufactured by the petitioner. However, at the present juncture, the procurement and purchase of raw material, viz. mainly rock phosphate, has been rejected by the respondents on the grounds that the supplies could not be traced out. Criminal cases were initiated against the petitioner. The Report was submitted in May, 2002. An investigation appears to have restarted thereafter. Shri Ajay Gupta, the Managing Director of the petitioner, had been taken into custody. Mrs. Gupta was also named in the 2003 complaint. In 2004 the District Judge, Ghaziabad passed an interim order but those proceedings are still pending. The allegation is that the proceedings are being deliberately protracted by the Officers of the respondents.

(2.) The first question which arises is whether this Court ought to exercise territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The contention of Mr. Bhushan is that the final decision has to be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture and Secretary and/or Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers. However, it needs to be borne in mind that apart from this factor the entire cause of action and all events germane and central to the dispute have transpired in Uttar Pradesh.

(3.) It is too late in the day to contend that merely because the Union of India has its headquarters in Delhi, Courts located in the Capital can invariably properly exercise jurisdiction over every dispute where it has been impleaded as a party. Assuming for the sake of arguments that a part of the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi, I favour the opinion that this Court should abjure from exercising jurisdiction since there are other Courts which are better suited to entertain the disputes that have been raised in this Petition (see Gupta Sanitary Stores v. Union of India and Another, 27 (1985) DLT 2 (SN)(FB)=AIR 1985 Delhi 122). The decision in Patel Roadways Limited Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514 is that if a Corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, litigation must be commenced in that place alone, regardless of apparently wider enabling provision in Section 20. The Court adopted a realistic, businesslike and expedient approach in opining that,