Gemini Consulting Services India Pvt vs Security Printing And Minting …. … on 30 March, 2026

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