Petitioner’s residence cannot confer territorial jurisdiction where the impugned action occurred outside the forum.

The petitioner, a Class “C” contractor enlisted with the Military Engineer Services (MES), had undertaken civil construction works for the respondents for over a decade.

One of its contracts, Contract No. CWE/MHOW/03 of 2023–24, was cancelled on 8 July 2025; the petitioner disputed the cancellation and stated that arbitration had not yet commenced.

The petitioner’s application for renewal of MES enlistment for the 2026–2032 cycle became subject to Policy Letter No. 66546/P-1/Renewal/2026/08/E8 dated 11 March 2025.

Clause 7(a) of the Policy allegedly disqualified renewal where a contractor’s work had been cancelled during the previous enlistment cycle for contractor default, unless an arbitral award had declared the cancellation illegal.

Respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer, Western Command, MES, Chandimandir Cantt., issued a show-cause notice dated 5 March 2026 concerning the cancelled contract.

The petitioner challenged both the Policy and the show-cause notice, alleging that renewal had been refused mechanically without considering its reply or passing a speaking order.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the show-cause notice and consequential renewal proceedings originated from Chandimandir Cantt., Panchkula, Haryana.

Whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because the petitioner was based in Delhi, the impugned Policy was issued by an authority located in Delhi, and the show-cause notice was received in Delhi?

Whether the material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, or whether the dispute was substantially connected with the authorities and proceedings situated in Panchkula, Haryana?

Whether the petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum conveniens, notwithstanding the challenge to the Policy issued by an authority located in Delhi?

The Court applied Article 226(2) of the Constitution, under which a High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory.

Relying on Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335, and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., (2023) 7 SCC 791, the Court held that only facts constituting a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action confer territorial jurisdiction; irrelevant or peripheral facts are insufficient.

The Court further applied the doctrine of forum conveniens, noting that even if a slender part of the cause of action arises within a High Court’s territory, that circumstance is not determinative.

Under Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710, the residence or location of the affected party does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction.

The Court also relied on Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 217 (DB) and State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217, for the principle that the petitioner’s residence is not relevant unless a material part of the cause of action arose within the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court held that the substance of the petitioner’s grievance was the show-cause notice dated 5 March 2026 and the consequential refusal to renew its MES enlistment, both of which were issued or undertaken by respondent No. 3 at Chandimandir Cantt., Panchkula, Haryana.

The contracts, their cancellation, and the renewal proceedings were also connected with MES authorities outside Delhi.

Although the petitioner challenged the Policy issued by respondent No. 2 in Delhi, the Court treated the Policy’s issuance as insufficient to confer jurisdiction because the operative and impugned application of the Policy occurred in Haryana.

The petitioner’s Delhi residence or place of business, and the receipt of the notice in Delhi, were regarded as insufficiently material or integral to the cause of action.

The Court additionally considered that similarly situated contractors had approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against comparable proceedings based on the same Policy, reinforcing that Haryana was the more appropriate forum.

Accordingly, the Court declined to examine the constitutional validity of the Policy or the merits of the show-cause notice.

The petitioner’s residence in Delhi and the location of respondent No. 2 there could not confer territorial jurisdiction when the principal challenge concerned the show-cause notice and renewal action undertaken by respondent No. 3 in Panchkula, Haryana.

The writ petition and pending application were dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, without adjudication on merits.

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, including before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.