Tender Floated Online For Work Outside Territorial Jurisdiction Will Not Confer Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a Writ Petition will not be maintainable with respect to a tender floated for work outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court merely because the tender document was floated online in the GeM portal.

The Court was considering a Petition arising out of a bid document floated in the GeM portal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for its IOCL- Panipat Refinery.

The Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha observed, "Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents it appears that the impugned tender is floated for the IOCL Panipat Refinery. There is nothing on record to show that similar clauses restricting the tender to only one bidder was floated within the jurisdiction of this Court. The materials will be required by IOCL at Panipat. A similar issue has been decided by the Madras High Court and the writ petition stood rejected.....The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not have any cause of action to maintain the writ petition."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Vineeta Meharia.

The Petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that the bid is limited to only one bidder and submitted that the entire bid document is an eyewash as the organisation has already named the bidder in the tender document. 

Advocate representing IOCL raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, relying on an order wherein, in respect of a similar bid floated by IOCL for a contract to be allotted at Panipat Haryana, the writ petition was rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the Madras High Court.

He submitted that the Writ Petition is not particularly against the tender floated for the Panipat Refinery and the effect on the right of the Petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Court has been highlighted for the purpose of maintaining the Writ Petition.

The Court did not accept the arguments and observed, "The integral part of the cause of action, that is, the tender document which has been floated is for the IOCL refinery at Panipat which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Only because the tender has been floated online and the right of the petitioner to participate in the tender process is allegedly infringed within the jurisdiction of this Court will, in my humble opinion, will not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petition."

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Rubber Regenerating & Processing Co. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) & Anr.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Sucheta Mitra, 

Respondent- Senior Advocate Sukumar Bhattacharya, Advocate Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Amit Meharia, Advocate Paramita Banerjee, Advocate Rohan Raj, Advocate Tamoghna Chattopadhyay, Advocate S. Sha 

Click here to read/ download Order