Full Text
W.P.(C) 3137/2026
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI KANDARP LAXMINARAYAN MEHTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Bhargavan, Mr. Nikhil S. Nair and Mr. Satvik K. Harita, Advocates.
Through: Mr Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr Kumar Kartikeya, Mr Chanakya Kene and Mr Dhananjay Singh, Advocates.
Mr Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Ms Ashiwriya Sinha, Ms Maanya Saxena and Mr Sujeet Chaudhary, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner, a resident of Nadiad, District Kheda, claims that he was appointed as a Notary Public, bearing Registration No. 21125, and was authorised to perform notarial functions in Nadiad, District Kheda, Gujarat under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956.
KUMAR KAURAV
2. He claims that since his Notary License was to expire on 08.03.2025, he submitted a renewal application dated 10.10.2024 to the respondentauthority, whereby he sought an extension of his certificate/license for 5 years i.e., from 10.03.2025 to 09.03.20230. Thereafter, various communications took place between the parties, and various reminders were also sent by the petitioner. Ultimately, his renewal application remained undecided causing him to file the instant petition.
3. The sole ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court appears to be that the respondent-Ministry is located in Delhi.
4. The sole ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is that concerned Ministry is located in Delhi. The same cannot be the reason to entertain the petition.
5. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,[1] took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp.,[2] Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education,[3] Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,[4] Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,[5] which declare that the situs of the respondent, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
6. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36: “36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an 2026:DHC:1605.
2024:DHC:6903-DB 2024:DHC:7146. authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan- India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the proposition that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis which arises from events or actions taking place within its territory. Merely because the ultimate order, which is based on events taking place outside Delhi and takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be entertained by this Court.”
7. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:
8. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. At para. 42 this Court observed:
9. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,[6] has held 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. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads as under: “Forum conveniens
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].]”
11. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the instant lis, if so advised.
12. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 12, 2026 Aks/Rao