Synopsis

The petitioners (contractors) challenged show‑cause notices and a debarment order issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), which debarred them from participating in NHAI projects for one year and imposed a penalty. The underlying construction project was located in Kerala, and all inspections, alleged deficiencies, and the contractual work occurred in Kerala. The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court solely on the ground that NHAI’s head office (the decision‑making authority) is situated in Delhi. The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the material, essential, and integral part of the cause of action arose outside Delhi (in Kerala); the mere location of the respondent authority in Delhi is an “unchanging constant” and does not confer territorial jurisdiction; and the court invoked the doctrine of forum conveniens to refuse jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Kerala High Court).

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 5212/2026 & 5237/2026 (2026:DHC:3468) (unreported)

Core Law: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction); principles of territorial jurisdiction; doctrine of forum conveniens; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20 (analogous principles)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20 (territorial jurisdiction of civil courts) – applied analogously

• Doctrine of forum conveniens – principle that a court may decline jurisdiction if another court is more appropriate

Key legal principles applied

Territorial jurisdiction in writ petitions – cause of action test: Under Article 226, a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits. However, the part of the cause of action that arises within the jurisdiction must be “material, essential, and integral” to the lis, not merely incidental or trivial.

Location of the respondent authority is not determinative: The fact that the respondent (e.g., NHAI, a central government authority) has its head office in Delhi does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. The “unchanging constant” of the authority’s location cannot be the dominant factor to decide territorial jurisdiction.

Doctrine

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.