$~94 & 114 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010129642026 + W.P.(CRL) 1060/2026 and CRL.M.A. 9974/2026 SHRI THAKUR DASS & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Swaroopananda Mishra, Advocate. versus THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SAFEMA ACT 1976 AND NDPS ACT & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Shankar Ray, CGSC with Ms. Sonali Modi and Mr. Mukul Dev, Advocates for R-1. 114 # CNR No. DLHC010176982026 + W.P.(CRL) 1346/2026 and CRL.M.A. 12922/2026, CRL.M.A. 12923/2026 MADAN LAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Swaroopananda Mishra, Advocate. versus COMETENT AUTHORTITY NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SPC with Mr. Sunil, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:07:22 O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. The present petitions seeks to challenge the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, under Section 68-O of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”), whereby the order dated 31.08.2020 (“Confirming Order”) passed by the Competent Authority, confirming the original Freezing Order dated 03.03.2020 (“Freezing Order”) issued by the SHO, PS Banjar, District – Kullu, Himachal Pradesh qua certain properties of the petitioners. 2. The facts appear to be that a total of 42.050 kilograms of Charas were recovered from the possession of a driver Shri Leela Dhar and a case bearing FIR No. 69/2020 came to be registered against him on 11.06.2020 by the SHO, PS Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. In connection with the said FIR, the Freezing Order was passed by the SHO, freezing properties of the petitioners, all of which are situated in Himachal Pradesh. 3. Thus, the SHO that passed by the Freezing Order, the properties and assets of the petitioners which were ultimately freezed, the FIR and the proceedings in relation to which the order was passed, the alleged crime in relation to which the FIR was registered, as also the petitioners themselves, are situated in Himachal Pradesh. The present petition seems to have been before this Court, on the sole ground that the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal under the NDPS Act happen to be situated in Delhi. 4. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,1 1 2026:DHC:1605. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:07:22 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 head office/registered office of the respondent, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition. 5. 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 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.” 6. 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. 7. 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 2 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892. 3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168. 4 2024:DHC:6903-DB 5 2024:DHC:7146. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:07:22 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] .]” 8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of territoriality. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the instant lis, if so advised. 10. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026/aks 6 (2004) 6 SCC 254. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:07:22