Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.05.2025
PEOPLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv.
Through:
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent no.1 has not granted sanction and released the grantin-aid in favour of the petitioner society from the year 2004-05 despite a recommendation in this regard being made by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. The background to the present petition is that the petitioner society is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) established on 02.06.2000 and has been functioning as a residential school for children belonging to scheduled tribes, in District Karimnagar, Telangana.
3. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Union of India had introduced a Scheme for providing grant in aid to voluntary organizations which are working for the promotion and social welfare of scheduled tribes. It is stated that under the said scheme, the State Government (Government of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh) first verifies the genuineness of the organization/s seeking the grant in aid followed by the said proposal being placed before the ‘State Committee for Supporting Voluntary Efforts’. The said committee then places its recommendations for release of grant in aid under the Scheme before the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (respondent no.1).
4. Under the said scheme, the respondent no.1 granted sanction and released grant-in-aid of Rs. 10,59,878/- in favour of the petitioner society for the year 2003-2004 vide letter/communicated dated 01.07.2004 [appended as Annexure P-1 to the present petition].
5. Thereafter, on 08.11.2004, a meeting of the Project Screening Committee of the respondent no.1 (Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Union of India) was conducted whereby cases of institutions receiving grant in aid under the aforesaid scheme were reviewed. In the said meeting, out of the 98 cases which were reviewed, 68 cases / educational institutions were declared as falling under the ‘NR’ category i.e. ‘Non-Recommended’ List and pursuant thereto, such institutions were declared to not be eligible for grant in aid under the scheme 2004-2005 onwards. The petitioner society was also one of the institutions falling under the ‘Non-Recommended’ List.
6. It is submitted that even thereafter, the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh continued to make recommendations for release of grant-inaid in favour of the petitioner society. It is submitted that as per the recommendations made by erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh across several years, a sum of Rs.50,30,485/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Five only) is due with the respondent no.1 for sanction of grant in aid in favour of the petitioner society.
7. It is noticed that the petitioner society is situated in Telangana. Given that the petitioner society is also registered in Telangana, the sanction of grant in aid is for the purpose of activities to be carried out by the petitioner in Telangana (erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh) itself. The fact that the concerned authority (Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Union of India), which has passed an order for release of grant-in-aid, being situated in Delhi would not by itself confer jurisdiction to entertain the matter upon this Court.
8. Reference is apposite to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 232 wherein it has been held as under - “30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670: ILR (1941)
1 Cal 490], Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357: AIR 1949 Cal 495], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122], S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126].]”
9. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162, has held as under:
Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. (2006) 130 C-C 390; (2006) 3 SCC 658 and Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 213 ELT 323; [2009] 20 VST 1 (S.C.), about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the writ petition as maintainable.
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.”
10. Reliance may also be made to the judgment of this Court in M/s. Shristi Udaipur Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892 wherein it has been held as under –
of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof. xxx
22. The position of law that clearly emerges from the above is that the expression “cause of action” means and includes the circumstance resulting in breach of right or immediate occasion for the party to react. The said expression shall take in its fold the whole bundle of material facts which a party must prove in order to succeed. It also includes the circumstances and situations that entitle a party to maintain an action in court. For determining as to whether a particular fact constitutes a cause of action, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and while considering the facts averred, the court has to consider the substance of the matter and not the form. Simply because a miniscule part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court may not be sufficient to compel the said court to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, discretion still rests with the court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens or the doctrine of nonconveniens. The said doctrine of forum non-conveniens can be invoked when the court deciding to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction, is vested with the jurisdiction to decide the case.”
11. The aforesaid position has been confirmed by a division bench of this Court in Anand Kumar v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Del 188 as well.
12. In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned jurisdictional High Court.
SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 5, 2025/cl, dn