P. SIVAPRAKASH, PROPRIETOR, PRECISION ASSOCIATES Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MG. DIRECTOR, THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINING CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impeaches the acceptance of the tender of the second respondent by the first respondent and wants this Court to direct the first respondent to accept the tender of the petitioner. The seat of the first respondent is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The very call for tender reads as follows:

(2.) Admittedly, tenders were received at Hyderabad, they were opened at Hyderabad, and the tender of the second respondent has been accepted at Hyderabad. Naturally, it goes without saying that the tender of the petitioner stood rejected at Hyderabad. In my view, no part of the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, so as to attract Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. However, Mr. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the contract, on acceptance will have to be worked out here only. That is a stage which has not been reached at all in the present case, and the petitioner is at the preliminary stage of acceptance of the tender in favour of the second respondent and non -acceptance of his tender. As Clause 2 of Article 226 relates to the powers of this Court, the relevant date is the date on which this Court is called upto exercise its powers. As on date, no cause of action, either in whole or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It may be a different matter if the contract, though got concluded in favour of the petitioner elsewhere, has got to be worked out or performed here or a breach or non -performance thereof took place here. In this view, the writ petition is dismissed. It is upto the petitioner if he so chooses to resort to seek the process of law before the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter.