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 orW.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 theConstitution (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
19:30:18W.P.(C) No.3915 of 2026 Page 10 of 10