The Delhi High Court recently observed that it cannot assume the territorial jurisdiction to hear a case only on the ground that a fraction of the cause of action arose in Delhi [Dr. Neha Chandra vs. Union Of India And Ors].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation while dismissing a doctor’s petition against an order passed by the National Board of Medical Exam Sciences (NBEM), an autonomous body functioning under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, headquartered in Delhi.
The Court noted that apart from the NBEM being based out of Delhi, all essential and integral aspects pertaining to the case arose in Uttar Pradesh, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The effect of any order passed in the case would also be felt in Uttar Pradesh, it observed.
Therefore, the Court rejected the petition based on the doctrine of forum conveniens as per which the jurisdiction to hear a case rests with the court that is most suitable for the resolution of the dispute.
“Court has constantly taken a consistent view that solely because a fraction of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the same would not be a sufficient ground to persuade the concerned High Court to entertain a writ petition. The doctrine of forum conveniens can be invoked by the concerned Court taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances involved, ” the Court observed.
The petition before the Court was filed by one Neha Chandra, a doctor, who challenged the NBEM's cancellation of her candidature for a diploma course in Uttar Pradesh, allegedly due to a five-month delay in joining classes.
She contended that she could challenge the NBEM's order before the Delhi High Court since the NBEM was situated in Delhi. The Court, however, disagreed and dismissed her petition.
The Court added that even though it has wide discretionary powers to entertain a case on the ground that a fraction of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the exercise of such jurisdiction depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
“There is not an iota of doubt with respect to the discretionary powers of the Court under Article 226(1) & (2) to entertain a writ petition on the basis of the fraction of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. However, the exercise of such discretion would depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in each case,” the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea, allowing Chandra the liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court to seek appropriate remedy.
Advocates Sriparna Chatterjee and Soumitra Chatterjee appeared for Dr. Chandra.
Senior Panel Counsel Anushkaa Arora and Government Pleader Gokul Sharma represented the Union of India.
[Read Order]