# Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 1138
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-05-26
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 8109 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gold-star-green-seeds-pvt-ltd-anr-v-u-o-i-ors-45757
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 -
maintainability
of
the
writ
petition
within the territorial jurisdiction - 'right
to action' and 'cause of action' are two
different things - A person residing any
where in the country being aggrieved by
an order of Government Central or State
or authority or person may have a right
to action at law but it can be forced or
the jurisdiction under Article 226 can be
invoked of that High Court only within
whose territorial limits the cause of
action wholly or in part arises. The cause
of
action
arises
by
action
of
the
Government or authority and not by
residence of the person aggrieved."
Para - 16

Supply of Dhaincha Seeds made to the
Nigam/Institution -- terms of the agreement -
Nigam/Institution is under obligation to pay
the amount of seeds supplied by the petitioner
to the NAFED - on receipt of the amount from
Nigam/Institution,
the
NAFED
is
under
obligation to make the payment to the
petitioner for the Seeds supplied by the
petitioner to the Nigam/Institution situated at
State of Bihar - Agreement executed at
Lucknow between the petitioner and National
Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation
of India (in short "NAFED") and the Dhaincha
Seeds were supplied to the opposite party No.
4/Bihar State Beej Nigam Limited, Bihar
(Nigam/Institution) - main dispute is between
petitioner/supplier
and
Nigam/Institution,
which is situated in the State of Bihar - all the
transaction with regard to supply of Seeds
took place within territories of State of Bihar.
Para - 6,9,11,13

HELD:- Taking into consideration the facts of
the case as also keeping in view the principles
regarding
cause
of
action,
territorial
jurisdiction and forum conveniens, we are of
the view that the present writ petition, for
payment of due amount, which in fact has to
be paid first by the opposite party No. 4-Bihar
State Beej Nigam, Bihar to NAFED and
thereafter the petitioner can get the same
from NAFED, is not maintainable before this
Court. Para -18

Writ petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,854 of 47,815. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39854 for what follows._

1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The writ petition, being devoid of merit,
is hereby dismissed.
----------

(2020)06ILR A1138
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL,
J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 8109 of 2020

Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Amol Kumar, Shivanshu Mishr

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Vijayant

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 -
maintainability
of
the
writ
petition
within the territorial jurisdiction - 'right
to action' and 'cause of action' are two
different things - A person residing any
where in the country being aggrieved by
an order of Government Central or State
or authority or person may have a right
to action at law but it can be forced or
the jurisdiction under Article 226 can be
invoked of that High Court only within
whose territorial limits the cause of
action wholly or in part arises. The cause
of
action
arises
by
action
of
the
Government or authority and not by
residence of the person aggrieved."
Para - 16

Supply of Dhaincha Seeds made to the
Nigam/Institution -- terms of the agreement -
Nigam/Institution is under obligation to pay
the amount of seeds supplied by the petitioner
to the NAFED - on receipt of the amount from
Nigam/Institution,
the
NAFED
is
under
obligation to make the payment to the
petitioner for the Seeds supplied by the
petitioner to the Nigam/Institution situated at
State of Bihar - Agreement executed at
Lucknow between the petitioner and National
Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation
of India (in short "NAFED") and the Dhaincha
Seeds were supplied to the opposite party No.
4/Bihar State Beej Nigam Limited, Bihar
(Nigam/Institution) - main dispute is between
petitioner/supplier
and
Nigam/Institution,
which is situated in the State of Bihar - all the
transaction with regard to supply of Seeds
took place within territories of State of Bihar.
Para - 6,9,11,13

HELD:- Taking into consideration the facts of
the case as also keeping in view the principles
regarding
cause
of
action,
territorial
jurisdiction and forum conveniens, we are of
the view that the present writ petition, for
payment of due amount, which in fact has to
be paid first by the opposite party No. 4-Bihar
State Beej Nigam, Bihar to NAFED and
thereafter the petitioner can get the same
from NAFED, is not maintainable before this
Court. Para -18

Writ petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1. Om Prakash Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & anr.,
(2006) 6 SCC 207

2. Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs U.O.I., (2014) 9
SCC 329,

3. Daya Shankar Bharadwaj Vs Chief of Air
Staff, New Delhi & ors., AIR 1988 Allahabad
36

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Sri Amol Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri Nishant Shukla,
learned counsel for the Union of India
and Sri Vijayant, learned counsel for the
National
Agriculture
Cooperative
Marketing Federation of India (in short
6 All. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1139
"NAFED") appeared before this Court
through video conferencing.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submitted
that
the
petitioner/Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt.
Ltd.
(in
short
"Supplier")
supplied
Dhaincha Seeds to opposite party No.
4/Bihar State Beej Nigam Limited, Bihar
through its Managing Director (in short
"Nigam/Institution"). With
regard
to
supply of Dhaincha Seeds, the Nigam
requested NAFED. The NAFED in terms
of the agreement dated 10.01.2011
directed the petitioner/Gold Star Green
Seeds Pvt. Ltd. to supply Dhaincha Seeds
to the Nigam vide letter dated 20.04.2011.
The total amount of the Seeds supplied by
the petitioner on the basis of the supply
order issued by the NAFED in terms of
the agreement dated 10.01.2011 amounts
to Rs. 10,37,59,457.20. In terms of the
agreement dated 10.01.2011, the Nigam
was/is under obligation to pay the amount
related to Dhaincha Seeds supplied to the
NAFED and thereafter the NAFED was/is
under obligation to pay the amount of
Seeds supplied to the petitioner. Out of
Rs.
10,37,59,457.20,
the
petitioner
received Rs. 7,44,73,352.00 and the
amount still due is Rs. 2,92,86,105/-. The
amount due is undisputed and in this
regard learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on para 14 to 18 to the
writ petition as also Annexure Nos. 4 to 8
to the writ petition. The amount due i.e.
Rs. 2,92,86,105/- has not been paid till
date and accordingly the petitioner has
been compelled to file the present writ
petition for the reliefs sought. Main
reliefs sought are as under:-

"01- Issue a Writ, Order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby
directing
the
opposite
parties,
more
particularly opposite party no. 2 & 3, to pay
the admitted amount i.e. 2,92,86,105/- along
with admissible interest.

02- Issue a Writ, Order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing
the
opposite
parties
to
decide
the
representations dated 19.12.2019 pending
before them."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that in similar facts and
circumstances, the Writ Petition No, 8117
(MB) of 2015 filed by the petitioner against
NAFED and U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam was
entertained and allowed by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 14.02.2020.

4. It is further submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, NAFED be
directed to pay the admitted amount
amounting to Rs. 2,92,86,105/- to the
petitioner.

5. After taking into account the contents
of the writ petition and documents annexed
therewith particularly para 3, 7 to 11 and 13 &
14 as well as the terms of agreement dated
10.01.2011, quoted hereunder, we raised the
issue/point related to the maintainability of the
writ petition within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court.

"Relevant paras of the writ
petition.

3. That the petitioner is seeking for
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus thereby commanding the opposite
parties to release the amount/pay the
outstanding to the tune of Rs. 2,92,86,105/-
with respect to the supply of Dhaincha Seeds
to opposite party no. 4 through opposite party
no.2 & 3.

7.
That
accordingly
an
agreement was entered into by & between
the petitioner and the opposite parties
1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no.2 & 3 by means of which amongst
others it was agreed that the petitioner
will participate in the tenders/orders
floated by various institutes for supply of
the seeds etc. on behalf of NAFED, the
petitioner would quote the rates in
consultation with NAFED. The copy of
the agreement dated 10.01.2011 entered
into by & between the parties is annexed
herewith this petition as ANNEXURE 1.

8.
That
vide
letter
dated
19.04.2011 the opposite party no.4
requested for the Dhaincha Seeds from
the opposite party no.2 & 3. The opposite
party no.2 & 3 through their letter dated
20.04.2011 directed the petitioner to
supply Dhaincha Seeds to opposite party
no.4. The copy of the letter dated
20.04.2011 is annexed herewith this
petition as ANNEXURE-2.

9. That opposite party no.4 used
to issue supply orders to the NAFED and
thereafter the NAFED used to direct the
petitioner to supply with the seeds to the
opposite party no.4 on behalf of the
NAFED in furtherance of the aforesaid
agreement.

10. That meanwhile the opposite
party no.2 requested the opposite party
no. 4 to release the payment however, no
heed was paid by the opposite party no.4.

11. That time & again the
petitioner was asked to supply Dhaincha
Seeds to opposite party no. 4 by the
opposite party no.2 & 3 in furtherance to
the
aforesaid
agreement
and
the
petitioner as per the terms agreed
supplied a total quantity of 30092.65
quintals of the said seed to the opposite
party no.4, as per the supply order issued
by the opposite party no.2 & 3 from time
to time.

13. That the total amount of the
seeds which were supplied by the
petitioner to the opposite party no. 4 on
the basis of the supply order issued by
opposite party no.2 & 3 amounted to Rs.
10,37,59,457.20. (at the rate of Rs. 3448/-
per quintal for 30092.65 quintals) was
due. The opposite party no.2 & 3 served a
letter dated 22.12.2011 upon the opposite
party no.4 requesting therein that the total
amount due be released.

14. That thereafter the total
amount of the seeds which were supplied
by the petitioner to the opposite party
no.4 on the basis of the supply order
issued by opposite party no.2 & 3
amounted to Rs. 10,37,59,457.20. (at the
rate of Rs. 3448/- per quintal for
30092.65 quintals) against which a total
sum of Rs. 7,44,73,352.00 was paid to the
petitioner in the following matter:

Date of Payment/Nature
of Payment
Amount paid
27.02.2012
Rs. 5,05,27,940
31.08.2012
Rs. 1,23,09,927
11.02.2013
Rs. 70,50,918
25.050.2019
Rs. 23,50,366
3%
Service
charge
deducted by the NAFED
Rs. 22,34,201
Total
Rs. 7,44,73,352
"

"Agreement dated 10.01.2011.

This deed of agreement made at
Lucknow signed on this day of 10-012011 and effective from Gold Star Green
Seeds
(P)
Ltd.
Kasganj
between
NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL
COOPERATIVE
MARKETING
FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
Lucknow A National Level cooperative
Society registered under state cooperative
societies Act. 1984, having its registered
office at Nafed House, Ashram Chowk,
Sidhartha Enclave, New Delhi 110014
represented by (BRANCH MANAGER)
Hereinafter referred to as NAFED which
6 All. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1141
expression shall wherever the context so
admits, mean and includes its successor
or successors in office and assigns of the
one part and M/s. Gold Star Green Seeds
(P) Ltd. Kasganj having its registered
office at Kasganj and represented by Shri
Subhash Mahewari S/o Shri Ghanshyam
Das Hereinafter called the supplier,
which expression shall wherever the
context so admits, mean and include its
legal heirs, representatives, executors,
administrators, successors in offices and
assigns on the second part.

Whereas Nafed is engaged in
the supplies of certified / truthfully
labeled / hybrid seed of various crops, viz.
cereals, fodder, green manure, oil seeds,
pulses etc. planting material/saplings to
institutions
all
over
India,
directly/indirectly. In order to fulfill the
objective Nafed is desirous to have back
to back arrangements with suppliers of
the above items who may secure orders or
participate in the tenders on behalf of
Nafed and are in a position to arrange the
supplies as per the following terms and
conditions:

1. Supplier will participate in
the tenders/ orders floated by various
institutions for the supply of truthfully
labeled, certified and hybrid seeds and
planting material / saplings of various
agricultural crops viz. cereals, fodder,
green
manure,
oil
seeds,
pulses,
vegetable,
flowers
and
horticulture
planting material and agro inputs and on
behalf of Nafed the supplier would quote
the rates to various institutions in
consultation with Nafed. In case rates
quoted by supplier are accepted by the
Institutions the supplier will arrange
purchase order in favour of Nafed and
after inspection of the stock by Nafed
representative / surveyor which should be
strictly as per specification and B.O.S.,
obtain DC from Nafed for supply of stock.
The supplier will obtain the receipt of the
stock form the institutions, indicating
therein the quantity/ quality of stock/
material
supplied,
as
per
tender/
purchase order and submit, the same to
Nafed for record and responsibility of the
supplier
that
goods/commodity
so
supplier are passed by the authorities of
the institutions and a certificate to this
effect to Nafed that goods commodity
Supplier have been accepted as per
quality and quantity norms and terms of
supply order required by the institution.

2. After arranging delivery of
the goods as per terms and conditions of
the tenders/orders and arranging delivery
of bills of Nafed to institutions, Supplier
will take all necessary steps to receive
payment
in
favour
of
Nafed
the
institutions within stipulated period.

3. After receiving the payment
from the institution, Nafed will release the
amount to supplier, after deducting
service charges for Nafed which shall
vary from item to item (specified herein
after) and deductions imposed by the
institution on account of shortage, quality
cut, late delivery charges, if any or any
other expenses.

4. After
the
supplier
gets
empanelled with Nafed BRANCH and
required
agreement
with
Nafed,
is
executed, the supplier will be required to
separately give a letter of intent to the
concerned branch of Nafed, through
which it wishes to make supply and to
which it wants raise bills in a particular
state. A branch of Nafed will generally
accept such letters of intern only for the
states, in which they are normally
operating
and
they
will
entertain
proposals of other state, only if the local
branch of Nafed for that state is not
willing or koen to enter into this business.
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
SUPPLER

1. The supplier will provide the
interest free performance guarantee of Rs.
5.00 lacs by demand draft in favour of
NAFED
which
would
remain
with
NAFED till the validity of the agreement,
depending upon the performance of the
supplier in getting and servicing the
orders of seed supply on behalf of Nafed.
The performance guarantee may be
forfeited by NAFED at any point of time
without prior intimation to the suppler to
recover any outstanding dues or in case
at any point of time the performance of
the
supplier
is
not
found
to
be
satisfactory.

2. The supplier will deposit
tender money and security amount with
Nafed if any, required by the institution to
be deposited before getting tender/order
by the Nafed. Nafed will in tum, deposit
the required security amount with the
institutions (Nafed has right invoke the
performance guarantee to make good the
losses, if any, suffered on account of the
acts of a omission or commission on the
part of the suppliers and breach in the
terms of present agreement).

3. The supplier shall undertake
supply of seed on behalf of NAFED as per
the prescribed quality and guidelines of
the buyer and shall indemnify NAFED
against all losses that be caused on
account of action or inaction on part of
the supplier. The associate shall be fully
responsible to ensure supply of seeds as
per the prescribed quality. Nafed will not
entertain
any
complaint
from
any
institution about the quantity, quality of
the material with the institution and settle
the same in the best interest of both the
organization. In case of any defected
goods supplier, the supplier will be solely
responsible for the same and will also be
responsible for meeting the entire legal
expenses to be incurred, by Nafed in case
of any legal compensation/litigation for
any complaint regarding defected/impure
goods should be resolved within 6 months
time from the date of complaint.

4. If there is any delay in
delivering the ordered goods as per the
specificatión of the purchase order or any
risks emanating due to non delivery of
goods in time, supplier will be solely
responsible for, same and shall bear all
consequences on account of the same.

5. The supplier will not work
simultaneously,
with
any
other
empanelled company/supplier, for supply
of seeds of same crop variety to the same
department in a state.

Other Terms and Condition

1. Nafed and the supplier have
agreed the and conditions for the supply
of particular item/ items on FOR/FOL
basis, ie, inclusive of transport cost and
all other taxes. expenses duties etc. upto
godown of the indenting institution as the
case may be.

2. The supplier will certify that
the quality and the quantity of the good to
be supplied are as per the terms and
conditions of the tender/PO. If possible,
Nafed's representative will accompany the
goods to deliver to the purchaser to
ensure that the stock has really landed the
godown of the institution. Nafed may
appoint a surveyor, if required, for
supervision
of
supplies.
The
two
certificates i.e. from surveyor about the
quality/quantity
and
Nafed's
representative
about
actual
stock
delivered at the party's godown are
important document for processing of the
payment to the supplier. The expenses
incurred towards surveyor's fee will be
bome
by
the
supplier
alone.
6 All. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1143

3. After receipt of the payment
form the buyer regarding goods supplied
by the supplier. Nafed will release the
payment to the supplier after deducting
the pre-decided service charges and
deduction if any made by the institution
on account of quality, shortage and late
delivery 3. or any other charges etc.

4. Supplier will ensure that all
goods supplied to various institution are
in conformity to the specification required
by the buyer.

5. Supplier will inform Nafed in
writing in advance before participating in
any tender of 5. behalf of NAFED.

6. Nafed reserves the right to
terminate the contract without assigning
any reason within the validity period of
agreement by giving on month notice and
has aright to appoint one or more
supplier/agent for the supply of goods to
the same institutions.

7. In case stocks and quality
indicated in the purchase order are
available with Nafed and supply rates
indicated in purchase order are higher
that the sale rates of Nafed the supplier
shall allow Nafed to supply such items
directly to the institution at agreed rates
without any intervention of the supplier.
In such transaction, supplier is not
entitled to any financial benefits.

8.
Service
Charges:-
The
service charges to NAFED shall be 3%
for seed and 5% for saplings and planting
material of the order value of each supply
order.

9.
In
such
back-to-back
deliveries of stock Nafed will not invest its
own money in any manner whatsoever. It
is the responsibility of the suppliers to
invest their own funds.

10. In case the performance of
the
supplier
is
not
found
to
be
satisfactory, the empanelment of the
suppler may be cancelled by giving one
month's notice and the agreement may be
terminated accordingly. The performance
guarantee may be forfeited by NAFED at
any point of time without prior intimation
to the supplier to recover any outstanding
dues or in case at any point of time the
performance of the company is not found
to be satisfactory.

11. The guidelines framed by
NAFED for supply of seeds form inherent
part of this agreement.

12. ARBITRATION :- In case
any dispute arises between Nafed and
supplier in respect of the supplies of
different items on the interpretation and
any clause of the present agreement on
any
subject
touching
the
present
agreement, same shall be referred to the
Managing Director of Nafed, who is
entitled to be the sole arbitrator appoint
any official of Nafed at act as arbitrator.
The decision of the Managing Director of
Nafed or any officer authorized be the
Managing Director to act as an arbitrator
would be final and binding on both the
parties.

All disputes arising out of this
agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction
of Delhi courts only. The party shall be
governed
by
the
arbitration
and
conciliation Act. 1996. The venue of the
arbitration will be Delhi.

13. This agreement is valid for
the period of 3 years and can be extended
on mutual consent for a period of one
year on each occasion.

In witness whereof, the parties
hereto have set and subscribed their
respective
hand
and
seal
on
this
agreement on the day, month, year first as
mentioned
in
the
presence
of
the
following witness:
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

FOR & ON BEHALF OF
SUPPLIER FOR ON BEHALF OF
NAFED"

6. It is relevant to clarify here that
we
raised
the
issue
of
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court as in fact the
supply of Dhaincha Seeds was made to
the Nigam/Institution and as per the terms
of the agreement, the Nigam/Institution is
under obligation to pay the amount of
seeds supplied by the petitioner to the
NAFED and on receipt of the amount
from Nigam/Institution, the NAFED is
under obligation to make the payment to
the petitioner for the Seeds supplied by
the petitioner to the Nigam/Institution
situated at State of Bihar.

7. With regard to the issue/point of
maintainability of the writ petition at
Lucknow,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted
that
agreement
between NAFED and petitioner was
executed at Lucknow and in terms of the
agreement, the Seeds were supplied to the
Nigam/Institution and on account of nonpayment of amount due, the right to sue
accrued to the petitioner and accordingly,
the
writ
petition
at
Lucknow
is
entertainable and maintainable.

8. We took note of arguments raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as pleadings and documents on record.

9. It appears from the record that the
agreement dated 10.01.2011 was executed at
Lucknow between the petitioner and NAFED
and the Dhaincha Seeds were supplied to the
opposite party No. 4/Bihar State Beej Nigam
Limited, Bihar (Nigam/Institution).

10. From the pleadings and
documents on record, which include the
agreement dated 10.01.2011 particularly
the term No. 2, 3 and the term No. 3
under the head "Other Terms and
Conditions", it transpires that right to get
the payment of Seeds supplied to Bihar
State Beej Nigam, Bihar-opposite party
No. 4 in fact has been infringed by the
opposite party No. 4-Bihar State Beej
Nigam, Bihar, as in absence of making
the payment by Nigam/Institution to
NAFED, the petitioner would not get the
amount
of
Seeds
supplied
to
Nigam/Institution from NAFED.

11. From the terms of the agreement
dated 10.01.2011 particularly term No. 1
and 4, term No. 5 under the head of
"Responsibility
of
Supplier"
and
pleadings as well as documents on record,
it transpires that all the transaction with
regard to supply of Seeds took place
within territories of State of Bihar.

12. In addition, if there exists a
dispute
between
the
petitioner
and
NAFED, then in view of term No. 12
under the head "Other Terms and
Conditions" of the agreement dated
10.01.2011, the same has to be decided
through Arbitration and the Court at Delhi
alone can entertain any petition with
regard to the dispute under the agreement.

13. Taking into account the entire
facts of the case, it further transpires that
main
dispute
is
between
petitioner/supplier and Nigam/Institution,
which is situated in the State of Bihar.

14. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs.
Union of India and another, (2006) 6 SCC
207, it was observed that writ petitioners
have to establish that a legal right claimed
by them has prima facie either been
infringed or is threatened to be infringed
6 All. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1145
by the respondent within the territorial
limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such
infringement may take place by causing
him actual injury or threat thereof.

15. In the case of Nawal Kishore
Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC
329, in para 16 the Apex Court observed
as under:-

"16. Regard being had to the
discussion
made
hereinabove,
there
cannot be any doubt that the question
whether or not cause of action wholly or
in part for filing a writ petition has arisen
within the territorial limit of any High
Court has to be decided in the light of the
nature and character of the proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
order to maintain a writ petition, the
petitioner has to establish that a legal
right claimed by him has been infringed
by the respondents within the territorial
limit of the Court's jurisdiction."

16. In Ex. No. 1387-5234-M
Sepoy/D.B./M.T., Chabi Nath Rai vs.
Union of India & others, 1997 (1)
UPLBEC 236, a Division Bench of this
Court, while considering the question
whether the cause of action had arisen at
Allahabad on communication of the
decision on the representation of the
appellant therein, had observed that the
'right to action' and 'cause of action' are
two different things. This distinction was
earlier considered by a Division Bench of
this Court in Daya Shankar Bharadwaj v.
Chief of Air Staff, New Delhi and others,
AIR 1988 Allahabad 36, wherein it was
observed:-

"A right of action arises as soon
as there is an invasion of right. But 'cause
of action' and 'right of action'...... are not
synonymous or interchangeable. A right
of action is the right to enforce a cause of
action
(Americal
Jurispurdence
2nd
Edition Vol.1.) A person residing any
where in the country being aggrieved by
an order of Government Central or State
or authority or person may have a right to
action at law but it can be forced or the
jurisdiction under Article 226 can be
invoked of that High Court only within
whose territorial limits the cause of
action wholly or in part arises. The cause
of action arises by action of the
Government or authority and not by
residence of the person aggrieved."

17. On the issue of territorial
jurisdiction and maintainability of the
writ petition before this Court, we have
also took note of the observations made
by the Full Bench of this Court in the
judgment dated 01.05.2020 passed in
Writ-A No. 2071 of 2017 and other
connected matters. The relevant paras are
quoted hereunder:-

"129. Article 226 confers upon
the High Court power to issue writs to
any
person
or
authority
or
any
Government,
within
its
territorial
jurisdiction, and with the insertion of
clause (1-A) subsequently renumbered as
clause (2), the said power may also be
exercised in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, wholly
or in part has arisen, notwithstanding that
seat of such Government or authority or
residence of such person is not within
those territories. The use of non-obstante
clause under clause (2) clearly manifests
that residence of the party is not a
relevant consideration for determining the
territorial jurisdiction under Article 226.

130. The relief sought by the
writ petitioner, though would be one of
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the relevant criteria for consideration, but
not the sole consideration in this regard.
The maintainability, or otherwise, of a
writ petition in a High Court would
depend on whether the cause of action for
filing the same arose, wholly or in part,
within the territorial jurisdiction of that
Court. The High Court would have
jurisdiction if any part of cause of action
arises within the territorial limits of its
jurisdiction even though the seat of the
Government or authority or residence of
person against whom direction, order or
writ is sought to be issued is not within
the said territory.

131. The expression "cause of
action" has been understood to be a bundle
of facts which are required to be proved.
The entire bundle of facts pleaded,
however, need not constitute a cause of
action as what would be necessary to be
proved would be the material facts on the
basis of which a writ petition can be
allowed. It may also be considered as a
bundle of essential facts, which it is
necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he
can succeed. The Court would be required
to take into consideration all the facts
pleaded in support of the cause of action
without embarking upon an enquiry as to
the correctness or otherwise of the said
facts. The facts as pleaded in the petition
may be considered, truth or otherwise
whereof being immaterial.

132.
In
legal
parlance
the
expression "cause of action" is generally
understood to mean a situation or state of
facts that entitles a party to maintain an
action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of
operative facts giving rise to one or more
bases for suing; a factual situation that
entitles one person to obtain the remedy in
Court from another person.

133.
The
meaning
of
the
expression "cause of action" as distinct
from "right of action", as evolved in terms
of the precedents, would go to show that a
right of action is a remedial right affording
a redress for the infringement of a legal
right and a right of action arises as soon as
there is an invasion of rights whereas a
cause of action would refer to the set of
operative facts giving rise to such right of
action. A person residing anywhere in the
country being aggrieved by an order of the
Government (Central or State), or authority
or person may have a right of action at law
but the same can be enforced by invoking
the jurisdiction under Article 226 of only
that High Court, within whose territorial
limits the cause of action wholly or in part
arises.

134. The "right of action" being
the right to commence and maintain an
action is therefore distinguishable from
"cause of action" in that the former is a
remedial right while the latter would
comprise the operative facts giving rise to
such remedial right. The former would be
a matter of right and would depend upon
the substantive law whereas the latter
would be governed by the law of
procedure.

135. It is, therefore, seen that a
"cause
of
action"
is
the
fact
or
corroboration of facts which affords a
party right to judicial interference on his
behalf. The "cause of action" would be
seen to comprise: (i) the plaintiff's
primary
right
and
the
defendant's
corresponding primary duty; and (ii) the
delict or wrongful act or omission of the
defendant, by which the primary right and
duty have been violated. The term "right
of action" is the right to commence and
maintain action or in other words the right
to enforce a cause of action. In the law of
pleadings, "right of action" can be
distinguished from "cause of action" in
that the former is a remedial right while
6 All. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1147
the latter would comprise the operative
facts giving rise to such remedial right.
The former would be a matter of right and
depend on the substantive law while the
latter would refer to the bundle of
operative facts and would be governed by
the law of procedure.

136. A right of action, may
therefore, be said to have arisen upon the
invasion of primary rights of the person
residing anywhere in the country being
aggrieved by an act or omission of the
Government or authority or a person, but
in order to enforce the same, the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of only that High Court can
be invoked, within whose territorial
jurisdiction, on the basis of the bundle of
facts, the cause of action can be said to
have arisen wholly or in part.

137. The question as to whether
any particular facts constitute a cause of
action or not has thus to be determined
with reference to the facts of each case
taking into consideration the substance of
the matter rather than the form of action.
The cause of action must be antecedent to
the institution of the proceedings and
before a petition can be entertained the
petitioner
would
be
required
to
demonstrate that one of the essential facts
giving rise to the petition has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court.

138.
The
powers
to
issue
directions, orders or writs to any government,
authority or person, may be exercised, as per
terms of clause (2) of Article 226, by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation
to the territories within which the cause of
action, "wholly or in part", arises. This
exercise
of
power,
may
be
made
notwithstanding that the seat of such
government or authority or residence of such
person is not within those territories.

139. In determining the objection
of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court
must, therefore, take all the facts pleaded in
support of the cause of action into
consideration without embarking upon an
enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of
the said facts. The question of territorial
jurisdiction thus must be decided on the facts
pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise,
whereof being immaterial.

140. It may, however, be added as a
caveat that if from the averments of the
petition, as they are, no part of cause of action
can be held to have arisen within the
jurisdiction of a High Court, that High Court
cannot assume territorial jurisdiction on the
ground of residence of the petitioner or the
like.

141. The expression "in part" has
been held to be comprehensive and includes
within its ambit even an infinitesimal fraction
of cause of action. The expression "wholly or
in part" used under clause (2) of Article 226
would therefore be referable entirely to the
facts stated and the grounds set forth in the
petition as the cause of action has no relation
to the defence set up or the objection raised by
the opposite party.

142. In order to invest the High
Court with jurisdiction to entertain a petition
under Article 226, the transaction in question
must be an integral part of the cause of action
which must arise within its territorial
jurisdiction, and would depend upon the facts
of the case and the nature of the order
impugned giving rise to the cause of action.

143. Notice may also be had to
the fact that Article 226(1) begins with a
non-obstante clause and in terms thereof
every High Court shall have power
"throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction", to issue to
any person or authority, including in
appropriate
cases,
any
Government,
"within
those
territories"
directions,
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders or writs, for the enforcement of
any other rights conferred by Part III or
for any other purpose. In terms of clause
(2) of Article 226 the power conferred by
clause (1) may be exercised by the High
Court if the cause of action, wholly or in
part, had arisen within the territory over
which
it
exercises
jurisdiction,
notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence
of such person is not within those
territories.

144. A plain reading of the two
clauses of Article 226 makes it clear that a
High Court can exercise the power to
issue directions, orders or writs for the
enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution or for any other purpose if
the cause of action, wholly or in part, had
arisen within the territories in relation to
which
it
exercises
jurisdiction,
notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence
of the person against whom the direction,
order or writ is issued is not within the
said territories.

145. Article 226(1) states that
every High Court shall have power,
throughout the territorial jurisdiction in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction,
to issue directions, orders or writs to any
person
or
authority,
including
in
appropriate
cases,
any
Government,
within those territories. The powers so
conferred under Article 226(1) have been
further amplified with the insertion of
clause (1-A), subsequently renumbered as
clause (2), which provides that the powers
conferred under clause (1) may also be
exercised by the High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, wholly
or in part, arises for the exercise of such
powers, notwithstanding that the seat of
such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within
those territories. It provides an expansion
to the normal rule of the respondent being
sued at his place of residence by
providing for exercise of jurisdiction
"notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence
of such person is not within those
territories".
The
non-obstante
clause
appearing under clause (2) thus enlarges
the scope of jurisdiction which is
primarily founded on the ground of cause
of action.

146. We may therefore observe
that Article 226(1) provides the source of
power of the High Court as well as its
territorial jurisdiction, whereas Article
226(2) amplifies the jurisdiction in
relation to a cause of action by providing
that the territorial jurisdiction would be
exercisable in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, arises,
wholly or in part. The cause of action
would include material and integral facts
and accrual of even a fraction of cause of
action within the jurisdiction of the Court
would provide territorial jurisdiction for
entertaining the petition.

147. The territorial jurisdiction
is to be decided on the facts pleaded in
the petition and in determining the
objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction
the Court would be required to take into
consideration all the facts pleaded in
support of the cause of action without
embarking upon an enquiry as to the
correctness or otherwise of the said facts.
The question whether a High Court has
territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ
petition is to be answered on the basis of
the averments made in the petition, the
truth
or
otherwise,
whereof
being
immaterial. The expression "cause of
action", for the purpose of Article 226(2),
6 All. Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 1149
is to be assigned the same meaning as
under Section 20(c) CPC, and would
mean a bundle of facts which are required
to be proved. However, the entire bundle
of facts pleaded, need not constitute a
cause of action as what is necessary to be
proved are material facts on the basis of
which a writ petition can be allowed.

148.
In
order
to
confer
jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain
a writ petition, the Court must be satisfied
from the entire facts pleaded in support of
the cause of action that those facts
constitute a cause so as to empower the
Court to decide a dispute which has, at
least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction.
Each and every fact pleaded in the
application may not ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that those facts give rise to a
cause of action within the Court's
territorial jurisdiction unless those facts
are such which have a nexus or relevance
with the lis that is involved in the case.
Facts, which have no bearing with the lis
or the dispute involved in the case would
not give rise to a "cause of action" so as
to confer territorial jurisdiction on the
Court concerned, and only those facts
which give rise to a cause of action within
a Court's territorial jurisdiction which
have a nexus or relevance with the lis that
is involved in that case, would be relevant
for the purpose of invoking the Court's
territorial jurisdiction, in the context of
clause (2) of Article 226.

149. The situs of the office of
the respondent would not be relevant for
the purposes of territorial jurisdiction in
the context of Article 226(2), and a place
where appellate or revisional order is
passed may give rise to a part of the cause
of action although the original order was
made at a place outside the said area, and
a writ petition would be maintainable in
the High Court within whose jurisdiction
it is situate, having regard to the fact that
the order of the appellate authority may
also be required to be set aside since the
order of the original authority has merged
with that of the appellate authority. In
such cases, where a part of a cause of
action arises within one or the other High
Court, it would be for the litigant who is
the dominus litis to have his forum
conveniens. In such cases, it would not be
wholly correct to say that the litigant
chooses a particular Court; the choice,
would be by reason of the jurisdiction of
the Court being attracted by part of cause
of action arising within the jurisdiction of
that Court, and it would ultimately be
upon the Court to find out in each case
whether the jurisdiction of the Court is
rightly attracted by the alleged cause of
action.

150.