AAR Kay Enterprises vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner had earlier preferred W.P. (C) 3748/2010 in this Court impugning the order dated 13th May, 2010 of the Respondents de-registering the Petitioner from the list of vendors of the Respondents. This Court held that since the order dated 13th May, 2010 had been passed in Chandigarh and the Petitioner is also located in Chandigarh, the Chandigarh Court was the more appropriate Court to entertain the challenge. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

The Petitioner thereafter moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh by way of CWP No. 7637/2011. However the Petitioner before that High Court represented that it had made a representation to the Respondents. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2nd May, 2011 with a direction to the Respondents to dispose of the representation made by the Petitioner and with a liberty to move "that Court" if the Petitioner remains aggrieved.

The representation of the Petitioner was directed to the Headquarters at New Delhi and was rejected vide order dated 3rd May, 2011; contending that since the rejection is by the Headquarters at New Delhi and thus this Court will have territorial jurisdiction, the present writ petition has been filed.

A perusal of the rejection letter dated 3rd May, 2011 shows that the Headquarters at New Delhi have on examination of the representation of the Petitioner merely held that no error was found in the decision taken by the Air Force Station at Chandigarh.

I am of the view that in the aforesaid circumstances when this Court has once already taken a view that the more appropriate Court to go into the grievance of the Petitioner is the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and further when the Punjab & Haryana High Court moved by the Petitioner gave opportunity to the Petitioner to move that Court only, it is not deemed appropriate to now entertain this writ petition. I may also mention that Full Bench of Five Judges of this Court has vide judgment dated 1st August, 2011 in WP(C) No. 6570/2010 titled M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. UOI overruled the earlier Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and held that this Court is not bound to entertain a petition merely because the order impugned therein has been passed at Delhi, when another Court would be more appropriate Court to entertain the controversy.

The petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to take appropriate remedies. No order as to costs.