P R TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Manish Goyal for the petitioner and Sri Madhur Prakash representing respondents No. 2 and 3 at length.

(2.) During the course of hearing Sri Madhur Prakash raised a preliminary objection regarding want of territorial jurisdiction on part of this Court to entertain and hear this writ petition. The objection of Sri Madhur Prakash can be divided into three parts : (1) No part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of U. P. (2) No facts have been pleaded in the writ petition on the basis of which it can be said that any part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of U. P. (3) The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands ousted in favour of the Jharkhand High Court under Clause 10.5 of the Tender Agreement, the relevant part of which reads that (any) dispute arising out of this scheme shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court.'

(3.) On this objection, both the sides were granted time to examine the matter. From the petitioner's side, a(second) supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that district Chandauli (in U. P.) is the principal place of business of the petitioner. This averment in para 2 pf the second supplementary affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Srivastava is sought to be corroborated by the copy of the registered partnership deed of the petitioner which has been enclosed as 1st Annexure to that affidavit. The said deed is dated 7-7-2000, and in it the principal place of business is at Chandauli and the only other place where the petitioner carries on business is Varanasi, which is also in the State of U. P.