- (1.) The short question to which we propose to limit ourselves in this appeal directed against the decision rendered by Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. of the Calcutta High court on 17/12/1993 in Writ Petition No. 487 of 1993, is whether any part of the cause of action for filing the petition had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said High court to entitle it to entertain, hear and decide the said petition The factual background in which the question of territorial jurisdiction arises may be noticed briefly.
(2.) The Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) , a government of India Undertaking, has a Gas Processing Plant at Hazira in the State of Gujarat. Engineers India Limited (EIL) acting as consultants for ONGC issued an advertisement dated 27/6/1991 in the leading newspapers of the country including those in circulation in West Bengal calling for tenders for setting up of a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit at the Hazira Complex in Gujarat. According to the said advertisement the tenders containing offers were to be communicated to EIL at New Delhi. NICCO, having its registered office in Calcutta, read and became aware of the tender notice printed in thetimes of India circulated within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High court. The tenders were to be scrutinised by a Tender Committee and the final decision was to be taken by a Steering Committee at New Delhi presided over by the Chairman of ONGC. NICCO, along with others, submitted their offer or bid in response to the tender notice. All the bids were scrutinised by EIL at New Delhi. NICCO's bid was rejected on the ground that it did not fulfil the requisite experience criteria stipulated in the tender. The recommendations made by the EIL were considered by the Tender. Committee. The Tender Committee, however, expressed the view that NICCO satisfied the experience criteria and they too should be called for the clarificatory meeting proposed to be held by EIL at New Delhi. The said meeting was held by the EIL with various bidders including NICCO some time in July-August 1992. After the said meeting EIL once again reiterated its earlier view that NICCO lacked the experience criteria. The Tender Committee re-examined the view of EIL and agreed with the same some time in October 1992. In view of the said development NICCO was not recommended for shortlisting by the Tender Committee. NICCO represented and their representations were considered by the EIL as well as the Tender Committee but they saw no reason to depart from their earlier view. The final decision was taken by the Steering Committee on 27/1/1993 at New Delhi, pursuant whereto it was decided to award the contract to M/s CIMMCO Ltd. Thereupon NICCO filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High court of Calcutta. In the said writ petition CIMMCO was not made a party. On the application of CIMMCO this court directed that it be joined in the appeal as a co-respondent. NICCO prayed that ONGC be restrained from awarding the contract to any other party and if awarded to cancel the same. The High court by its impugned order dated 17/12/1993 directed as under: "There will be an order directing the respondents to consider the offer of the petitioner along with the others and in the event the petitioner's offer is otherwise found to be valid and lowest and in the event petitioner otherwise complies with the formalities, petitioner's offer should be accepted by the respondent authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. "all the parties to the writ petition were directed to act in accordance with the signed copy of the aforesaid operative part of the order. A detailed judgment giving reasons for the aforesaid operative part of the order was later rendered on 4/2/1994.
(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High court in the aforesaid writ petition, ONGC moved this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This court by its order dateid 31/1/1994 granted an ad interim order for maintenance of status quo. Thereafter on 25/2/1994 leave to appeal was granted and the status quo order was continued. As stated earlier by the said order CIMMCO was impleaded as a party-respondent.;