$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1591/2026 ARUN BABAN SAWANT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirban Tripathy and Ms. Vatsla Vishakha Prabhudasi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra solanki CGSC, Ms. Aishwarya shina GPMr. Siddharth Bajaj and Mr Sujeet Kumar Choudhary, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 04.02.2026 CM APPL. 7762/2026 ( EXEMPTION) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1591/2026 3. The petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “a. Allow the present petition and issue this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, ordering and directing the Respondent to disclose on affidavit why the Petitioner has not been appointed as a notary; and b. Direct the Respondent to issue certificate of practice to the Petitioner as a notary. c. Award the cost of this petition. d. Pass such other and or further order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 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 06/02/2026 at 13:18:41 4. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Mumbai, Maharashtra. Merely, the office of Union of India is in Delhi, he has approached this Court. The same should not be the sole reason to entertain this petition. 5. The material, essential and integral cause of action, if any, has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court and within the jurisdiction of the Court where the petitioner is practicing. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.1, has held 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] .]” 6. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with liberty to file a fresh before the jurisdictional High Court. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 4, 2026 aks/ap 1 (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 06/02/2026 at 13:18:41