Orissa High Court
Gemini Consulting Services India Pvt vs Security Printing And Minting .... ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026
Gemini Consulting Services India Pvt. .... Petitioner
Ltd., Bhubaneswar
-Versus-
Security Printing and Minting .... Opposite Parties
Corporation of India Limited, New
Delhi and others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Lochan Barik, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI
along with Mr. Millon Kumar, CGC
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment : 30th March, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. A preliminary objection is raised in the instant writ petition on the maintainability thereof before this Court on the premise of non-accrual of even minuscule part of the cause of action, within the territorial limits of this Court.
W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 1 of 10
2. The relevant facts discerned from the instant writ petition constituting a cause of action are succinctly jotted down hereunder.
The opposite party No.1, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited having its office at New Delhi, floated a tender on 17th September, 2020 for Designing, Development and Configuration of EPF, PF and Pension Trust in SAP, wherein the petitioner participated and was awarded the contract vide Letter of Intent dated 2nd November, 2020. Subsequently, the purchase order was issued on 28th November, 2020 after furnishing the performance Bank Guarantee. Three show-cause notices were issued on 5th February 2021, 16th March 2021 and 11th January, 2022 respectively to blacklist the petitioner for delay in completing the project. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notices taking shelter under unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic causing severe constraint in mobilising the resources, health disruptions and the Government- imposed lockdowns together with updating the progress having made in the interregnum and sought for an extension of time. Several mails were exchanged seeking cooperation to complete the minor pending items and even the extended Bank Guarantee was also furnished. It is averred that the moment the project was at the verge of completion W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 2 of 10 leaving the minuscule part to be completed, the Debarment Notification dated 18th June, 2025 was uploaded on the official website of the said opposite party No.1 purporting to debar the petitioner for two years. The said letter of debarment is assailed in the instant writ petition and a plea of maintainability of the writ petition by this Court assumes significance in relation to the exercise of the power and the jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Apart from the oral submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the written note of submission is also submitted in this regard. It is sought to be contended by the counsel that although the contract was executed at Delhi but was substantially performed through the Bhubaneswar office by deployment of the workforce in execution of the contract. It is further submitted that all the operational, administrative and logistic supports essential for performance of the contract were in fact mobilised from Bhubaneswar and, thus, a part of the cause action has arisen within the territorial limits of this High Court and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. The reliance is placed upon the judgments of the apex Court delivered in case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 3 of 10 Union of India reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 and Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335 in support of the contention that if the cause action has arisen within the territorial limits of a different High Court, the writ petition filed in any one of the High Courts is maintainable.
4. At the very outset, we must record that there is no dissention so far as the law laid down in the above noted decisions. There is no incongruity or any dissent to the proposition of law that a minuscule part of the cause of action would be the relevant factor to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having arisen within its territorial limit.
5. The question begging an answer in the instant case is to ascertain the true meaning of the expression "cause of action"
appearing in Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which runs thus:
"226. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 4 of 10 in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."
6. The expression "cause of action" is neither defined in the constitutional provision nor under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but attempted to be defined through the judicial pronouncements by various Courts of the country. Ordinarily, the cause of action means such relevant facts, which a litigant has to plead and prove in pursuit of reliefs claimed on determination by the Court. Since the cause of action assumes important factor and being an integral part of the litigation in an adversarial system, the same is attempted to be defined more than 100 years before by Lord Breet in Cooke v. Gill reported in (1873) LR 8 CP 107 to mean every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.
7. Thus, the cause of action is the heart and soul of the litigation, in absence whereof, it cannot survive. At the time of adoption of the Constitution on 26th January 1950, the concept of "cause of action"
was conspicuously absent to exercise the writ jurisdiction by the W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 5 of 10 respective High Courts, which was initially brought by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 by inserting new clause (1-A), which received further amendment by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 by renumbering as Clause (2).
8. By virtue of such legislative amendments in the Constitution of India, the factors concerning the cause of action gained the relevant aspect in maintaining and/or entertaining the writ petition by the respective High Courts. It aimed to achieve an avowed object of limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court and assumption of the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. It further aimed to eliminate simultaneous exercise of the jurisdiction by a different Court in relation to the same subject matter inviting an anomalous situation in the event the conflicting judgments are passed. It sought to achieve a milestone in eradicating the forum shopping or jurisdictional convenience at the behest of an unscrupulous litigant. It is thus central tool to not only adjudication of the dispute, which has arisen within the territorial limits of the High Court wholly or partly, but also to ensure the comity of judicial dispensation of justice. In recent time, an attempt is made by the litigants to corrode the fabric thereof with the illusory cause of action W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 6 of 10 and it is a paramount duty of the Court to discern the accrual of the cause of action before it exercises the power of judicial review enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Reverting to the merit of the instant case, the sequel of narration of facts hereinabove leaves no ambiguity that the tender was floated at Delhi, the contract was executed at Delhi and the execution of a work was done at Delhi. Whether the mobilisation of human resources in execution thereof constitutes a cause of action in relation to the order of debarment issued by the authority at Delhi and posted on the official website of opposite party No.1?
10. In Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 710, the apex Court was considering the identical issue on somewhat similar fact where the contract was executed at Aligarh and the execution of the work was also carried out therein, in such perspective whether the Calcutta High Court assumes jurisdiction, it is held that "We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 7 of 10 was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a case of abuse of jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable."
11. In National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram reported in (2004) 9 SCC 786, the apex Court categorically held that mere carrying on the business at a place and the reply to a correspondence is made from the said place shall not constitute an integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the High Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction as no minuscule part of the cause of action has arisen therein.
W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 8 of 10
12. The ratio laid down in the above noted decisions leads to an inescapable proposition of law that the fact, which has no relevance and / or germane to a dispute, cannot come within the purview of the cause of action but those facts, which are material without which the litigation cannot stand, would be the relevant facts for the purpose of constituting a cause of action. In the instant case, the contract was executed at Delhi for executing the work at Delhi and the debarment order is also passed at Delhi and, therefore, not a minuscule cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. The contention of the petitioner that for the purpose of execution of a contract, the human resources were mobilised at Bhubaneswar or the administrative decision in execution of the contract is taken at Bhubaneswar would constitute a minuscule part of the cause of action is unsustainable, it is to be reminded that the petitioner has challenged the order of debarment being the central to the dispute, which is admittedly issued by an authority at Delhi and posted in the official website and, therefore, the facts, which do not have any relevance to the same, cannot partake a character of cause of action.
W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 9 of 10
13. We, thus, hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition as no cause of action has arisen within its territorial limit.
14. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. No order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge M. Panda Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by:
MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Reason:
Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Mar-2026 19:30:18 W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 10 of 10