Judgment:
ORDER
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard.
2. After some arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants states that in case his petition is found not maintainable either under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Clause (2) thereof, he be permitted to withdraw the writ petition itself and it be observed that any finding with reference to the facts of the case in the impugned judgment shall not be used against either party.
3. Learned Single Judge has followed the principle of law with respect to the cause-of-action, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as found in Article 226(2) of the Constitution and also with reference to the presence of a Branch Office of the respondent-ONGCL in the State of Andhra Pradesh and held that going by the principle that the expression 'cause-of- action' means that bundle of facts, which the petitioners must prove, if traversed to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court, it is not possible on the facts pleaded in the petition to hold that some events unconnected with the main cause, which have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, are enough to attract Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The Court has also taken notice of the presence of the Branch Office within the State, but has found the same is not sufficient to treat the authority of ONGCL as one within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
4. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, : (1994)4SCC711 , the Supreme Court has reiterated the law, which has somehow been breached by many Courts, that enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Courts from what originally was found in Article 226 of the Constitution of India by introduction of Clause (2) therein was a result of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao : [1953]4SCR1144 ; yet, it is never intended to clothe the High Court with such power that for any and every presence within its territorial jurisdiction of an authority or of some incidents which are trivial or insignificant in the bundle of facts which constitute the cause-of-action, tine Court shall exercise jurisdiction and entertain writ petitions. Learned single Judge followed the above, but appears to treat the inhibition of a general nature upon the jurisdiction of the Court which, we say with respect, is not intended by Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution. What is intended therein is to take notice of the bundle of facts which give rise to the cause-of-action and the substance thereof before deciding whether the cause-of-action, or any part thereof, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as well as the loco conventi, which has given rise to the expansive principle of balance of convenience. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court as the insignificant presence of a Branch of the respondent within the territory of the State with no role to play in the matter in issuance of the global tender, its tender sought to be impugned by the petitioners and the insignificant role played by it and incidents which have connected some affairs of the respondent with some activities in the territory of the State are not enough for attracting either Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment by the learned single Judge has to be understood limited to the above. Since petitioners have made a prayer to withdraw the writ petition to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, we see no objection to it.
5. In the result, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that instead of the writ petition having been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the same is dismissed as withdrawn, to enable the petitioners to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.
6. The appeal is accordingly ordered.