High Court may refuse writ jurisdiction under forum conveniens if material cause of action arises elsewhere.

In 2015, the Petitioner was sanctioned financial assistance of Rs. 10,00,00,000 for an integrated cold-chain project located in Uttarakhand under a government scheme

On 08.11.2019, the Respondent declined to release the third installment of the grant-in-aid

The Petitioner challenged this in a previous writ petition (W.P. (C) 454/2020), which the Delhi High Court disposed of on 06.03.2025, directing the Respondent to grant a hearing to the Petitioner

Following the hearing held in Delhi, the Respondent issued a communication dated 04.12.2025, treating the Petitioner’s case as ‘closed’

The Petitioner filed the present writ petition to set aside this communication.

The Court questioned the maintainability of the petition regarding territorial jurisdiction since the project is situated in Uttarakhand

1. Whether the Delhi High Court must entertain a writ petition solely because a small part of the cause of action (issuance of an order or conducting a hearing) arose within its jurisdiction

2. Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens permits the Court to refuse the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction when the material part of the cause of action lies elsewhere

The Court primarily relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which clarified that 'cause of action' comprises every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support their prayer

It established that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's jurisdiction, the Court may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens

The Court also applied the principle from Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, holding that the situs of the parties or the location where an order is passed is not the sole determinative factor for compelling a Court to entertain a petition

The Petitioner argued that jurisdiction was proper because the impugned order was passed in Delhi and the previous litigation occurred there

While the Court admitted that a fraction of the cause of action arose in Delhi due to the Respondent's office location and the passing of the order, it determined that the "essential, material, and integral" part of the action arose in Uttarakhand

The Court reasoned that the underlying dispute involves verifying whether the Petitioner complied with the terms and conditions of a project physically situated in Uttarakhand

Relying on Kusum Ingots, the Court noted that the mere occurrence of correspondence or hearings in Delhi does not outweigh the fact that the project’s performance and subject matter are outside its territorial limits

Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to invoke the doctrine of forum conveniens to decline jurisdiction

It disposed of the petition while granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Uttarakhand)

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case