Discretionary Writ Jurisdiction may be Refused under Doctrine of Forum Conveniens despite Partial Cause of Action.

The Petitioner, a registered trade union representing employees of Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPCL), challenged the Union of India’s decision dated 26.05.2026 approving Respondent No. 7 (Skymap Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) as the strategic buyer for 100% disinvestment of IMPCL

The Petitioner alleged undervaluation of assets and lack of employee safeguards

IMPCL’s manufacturing facility and registered office are located in Mohan, Uttarakhand, on land leased from a Uttarakhand State Corporation (SIIDCUL)

Historically, the Petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the disinvestment policy multiple times before the High Court of Uttarakhand between 2019 and 2024, eventually withdrawing an appeal there in July 2026 with liberty to file fresh proceedings

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, given that the subject enterprise and manufacturing unit are located in Uttarakhand.

2. Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens precludes the court from exercising jurisdiction despite the seat of the Union Government and a jurisdiction clause in the Preliminary Information Memorandum (PIM) being in Delhi.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action, in whole or in part, arises

Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which established that the mere location of the seat of the Union Government does not confer jurisdiction if no material part of the cause of action arose there

the doctrine of forum conveniens as elucidated in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., holding that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a court’s territory, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate for the adjudication of the dispute

The Court observed that the "substance of the matter" was intrinsically tied to Uttarakhand, as the company, its workers, and the contentious 36-acre forest land lease are situated there

Although the Petitioner relied on Clause 3.3.32 of the PIM, which suggested Delhi as the exclusive jurisdiction for disputes, the Court noted that the Petitioner had waived this by consistently litigating the same disinvestment process in Uttarakhand for years

Furthermore, a significant issue in the petition—the potential reversion of land to the Uttarakhand State Government—was already being addressed by the High Court of Uttarakhand

The Court reasoned that the mere presence of Union Ministries in Delhi is insufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction when the "integral" or "material" facts (the PSU's operations and land rights) are outside its territory

Applying forum conveniens, the Court determined that the balance of convenience favored Uttarakhand, especially since the High Court there had already dismissed a similar petition by the IMPCL Officers Association

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate competent court for redressal and clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case