Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) There is no fundamental right to trade at a particular public space, and the same is subject to reasonable restrictions. In support of these submissions reliance has been placed on Dharam Singh v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi 18.

(vi) The petitions are not maintainable as all license agreements contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause which states that all disputes arising out of the said agreements shall be adjudicated by the courts of that particular zonal railway headquarters. Additionally, the 2017 Policy incorporates an arbitration clause at Clause 18. It is emphasised that mere situs of the Railway Board based in Delhi, which issued the 2017 Policy does not confer jurisdiction upon this court. It is submitted that even if a small part of clause of action has arisen in Delhi, the same by itself is not a determinative factor compelling this court to decide the matter on merits. Considering the doctrine of forum conveniens, it is submitted that, the petitioners should approach the court which has the most proximate connection to the disputes. In support of these submissions reliance has been placed on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India19, Shiva Industries v. Union of India 20 and Durgapur Freight Terminal (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 21.

"55. In the light of the discussion above, it has now to be determined as to whether in the present case this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. As noticed above, the question as to whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition has to be arrived at on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise thereof being immaterial. [see Kusum Ingots (supra) and ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (supra)]. It has been averred in the petitions that paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, which is an executive instruction issued by the Railway Board, is the root cause for the raising of the punitive demands, which are challenged in this petition. Mr Kaul submitted that if paragraph 1744 had not existed then the demands challenged herein would not have been raised. He submits that paragraph 1744 is violative of Section 73 and 79 of the Railways Act, 1989. Without going into the question of truth or otherwise of these averments and without examining the merits of the challenge to paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, it is clear that the challenge exists and that the said paragraph 1744 forms part of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, which was issued by the Railway Board at New Delhi. A writ striking down the said paragraph would have to be issued to the Railway Board which is in New Delhi. Therefore, from the standpoint of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, this Court would have jurisdiction inasmuch as the authority to whom the writ is to be issued is located within the normal territorial limits of this Court. It is true that if the case rested only on a challenge to the demands de hors the question of validity of para 1744 then, only Article 226(2) would be applicable and this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. But, that is not the case."