Delhi High Court
Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail) vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2026
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13404/2024 and CM APPL. 56081/2024
Date of decision: 27.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (SAIL)
Having its Office at
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003 .....Petitioner
(Through: Mr.Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anand
Varma, Ms Apoorva Pandey, Mr Polavarapu Sai Charan, Advocates.)
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through the Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001 .....Respondent No.1
2. STATE OF ODISHA
Through its Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Steel and Mines,
Odisha Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar, Distt. Khorda. .....Respondent No.2
3. DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY, ODISHA
Head of Department Building,
Sachivalay Marg,
Bhubaneswar-751001, Odisha. .....Respondent No.3
4. JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES
Office of the Director of Mining & Geology, Odisha
Head of Department Building,
Sachivalay Marg,
Bhubaneswar-751001, Odisha. .....Respondent No.4
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
5. Deputy Director of Mines
Rourkela, Dist.Sundargarh,
Odisha - 769012 .....Respondent No.5
(Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi (SPC) with Mr.Madhav Bajaj,
Advocate.
Mr.Shashank Bajpai Special Counsel, Ms.Aashna Mehra, Mr.Vatsal
Tripathi, Mr. Govind Singh Chauhan, Advocates.)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash
the Impugned Order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Revisionary
Authority; and/or
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction restoring the Petitioner’s Revision
Application before the Revisionary Authority and directing to the
Revisionary Authority to consider afresh the same in accordance with
law; and/or
(iii) Pass any such or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner seeks for setting aside of order dated 06.05.2024 passed
by the respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India under Section 30 of the Mines &
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act‘) and Rule
36 of Minerals (other than atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals)
Concession Rules, 2016 (‘Rules of 2016’).
3. The dispute pertains to the petitioner’s rights under the mining lease
with respect to Purnapuri Limestone and Dolomite Quarry situated in the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
State of Odisha. It appears that the lease was executed in favour of the
petitioner in the year 1960 and extended from time to time. Vide the
impugned order, the petitioner’s challenge to the demand order dated
25.01.2023 issued by the State of Odisha, towards shortage of quantity of
limestone in dumping, has been rejected. The rejection was mainly on the
ground that the revision was not maintainable in view of Section 23C(3) of
the MMDR Act.
4. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, while placing reliance on a decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Vishnu Security Services vs. Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, 1 decisions of this Court in the case of Alchemist Ltd.
Vs. State Bank of Sikkim,2 and Aplle Alloys vs. UOI,3 submits that in view
of clear distinctions between the scheme of Article 226(3) and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the principle governing the dispensation under Article
226 may not be applicable in cases where the challenge is essentially under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, distinguishes the
judgment in the case of Siddhartha S. Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand
Mitter4.
5. The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are
strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that
the argument made herein, has been conclusively adjudicated by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v.
1 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1024 2 (2007) 11 SCC 335 3 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11378 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
Union of India. 5 It is also submitted that the entire cause of action has
arisen within the State of Odisha, mines are situated within the State of
Odisha, shortage of quantity of limestone in dumping has taken place in
Odisha and the consequential order of demand has been issued by the State
of Odisha. It is merely the Revisional Authority is situated in Delhi, is the
sole reason for the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this Court and
therefore, this challenge would not be maintainable in view of the consistent
positions taken by the Court.
7. The applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens to orders passed
by appellate authorities has been conclusively decided by a Full Bench of
this Court in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. The said decision has also
been relied upon by this Court in the case of Indure Private Limited v.
Government of NCT of Delhi6. The relevant portion of the decision in M/s
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. is extracted as under:-
“34. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep
encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within the
jurisdiction of the court would not itself constitute to be the determining
factor compelling the court to entertain the matter. While exercising
jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
court cannot be totally oblivious of the concept of forum conveniens. The
Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010
Delhi 43; (2011) 166 Comp Cas 87 (Delhi), has not kept in view the
concept of forum conveniens and has expressed the view that if the
appellate authority who has passed the order is situated in Delhi, then
the Delhi High Court should be treated as the forum conveniens. We are
unable to subscribe to the said view.
35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify the
findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43; [2011] 166 C-C 87 (Delhi)
and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows :
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action
emerges at the place or location where the Tribunal/appellate
5
2011 SCC OnLine Del 1385
6
2023:DHC:1605Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e.,
Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that
would amount to failure of the duty of the court cannot be accepted
inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the
Tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the
concept of forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within the
jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be maintainable before
this court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the
ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of
Sikkim (2007) 136 C-C 665; (2007) 11 SCC 335.
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of
action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within
whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may
not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter
on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is
located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute
terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case
and depend upon the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under
article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a mala fide manner is too
restricted/constricted as the exercise of the power under article 226
being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of mala
fide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens
and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinised by the
High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of
what has been stated in Ambica Industries v. CCE(2007) 213 ELT 323;
[2009] 20 VST 1 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.(2002) 1
SCC 567.
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43; (2011) 166 C-
C 87 (Delhi) (page 115):”… that since the original order merges into the
appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also
forum conveniens” is not correct.
(h) Any decision of this court contrary to the conclusions enumerated
hereinabove stands overruled.”
8. In view of the aforesaid, it is seen that the impugned order is arising
out of the demand notices raised by the Government of Odisha with respect
to a mine in the State of Odisha. The integral, essential, and material part of
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
the cause of action for the present petition, therefore, arose in the State of
Odisha.
9. This Court in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. has disapproved the
contrary view which was taken by the earlier Full Bench in the case of New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India.7 The Court has held that the
view in the case of New India Assurance Limited which was wholly based
on the situs of the Tribunal/ Appellate Tribunal/Revisional Authority was
passed without considering the concept of forum conveniens.
10. In view thereof, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction and on applying principle of forum
conveniens. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed along with the
pending application.
11. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the
jurisdictional High Court.
12. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 27, 2026
Nc/ksr
7
2009 SCC OnLine Del 1764
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV