Shri Kandarp Laxminarayan Mehta vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court
Case type
Writ Petition Civil
Decided on
12-03-2026

$~105
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3137/2026
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

SHRI KANDARP LAXMINARAYAN MEHTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Saurabh Bhargavan, Mr. Nikhil
S. Nair and Mr. Satvik K. Harita,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr
Kumar Kartikeya, Mr Chanakya Kene
and Mr Dhananjay Singh, Advocates.
Mr Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Ms
Ashiwriya Sinha, Ms Maanya Saxena
and Mr Sujeet Chaudhary, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioner, a resident of Nadiad, District Kheda, claims that he
was appointed as a Notary Public, bearing Registration No. 21125, and was
authorised to perform notarial functions in Nadiad, District Kheda, Gujarat
under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

2. He claims that since his Notary License was to expire on 08.03.2025,
he submitted a renewal application dated 10.10.2024 to the respondent-
authority, whereby he sought an extension of his certificate/license for 5
years i.e., from 10.03.2025 to 09.03.20230. Thereafter, various
communications took place between the parties, and various reminders were
also sent by the petitioner. Ultimately, his renewal application remained un-
decided causing him to file the instant petition.
3. The sole ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court appears to be
that the respondent-Ministry is located in Delhi.
4. The sole ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is that
concerned Ministry is located in Delhi. The same cannot be the reason to
entertain the petition.
1
5. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi ,
took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban
2
Development Corp. , Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary
3
Education , Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v.
4
Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors. , Michael Builders and
5
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors. , which
declare that the situs of the respondent, does not determine whether the
Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
6. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36:
36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an
“

1
2026:DHC:1605.
2
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892.
3
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168.
4
2024:DHC:6903-DB
5
2024:DHC:7146.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision
lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan-
India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take
place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the proposition
that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis which arises
from events or actions taking place within its territory. Merely because the
ultimate order, which is based on events taking place outside Delhi and
takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed within the
jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be entertained by this
Court. ”
7. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground
of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated
within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:

“ 37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and
bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority
happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in
this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital,
but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more
importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court.
The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is
merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it
has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the
foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken.
38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to “dominant
facts”, and facts which are “material, essential and integral” to the lis in
question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office
is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the
jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non-
integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could
very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole
reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get
connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be
seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal
injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an overwhelming
number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case, can this constant
factum, which shall remain present in each case, be considered a “dominant
fact” or a “material, essential and integral” fact? The answer must be in
the negative. ”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

8. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be
adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition
against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a
petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens .
At para. 42 this Court observed:
“ 42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in
determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an
authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet,
which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where
territorial jurisdiction would lie. ”
9. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action
which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason
to entertain the instant petition.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
6
Union of India and Anr. , has held that even if a small part of cause of
action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the
High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court
may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine
of forum conveniens . The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads
as under:
“Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of
cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative
factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat
Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR

6
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

(1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 :
AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold
Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of
India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]”

11. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however,
granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court
to agitate the instant lis , if so advised.
12. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 12, 2026
Aks / Rao





Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14