$~55 to 57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4331/2026 and CM APPL. 21094-21095/2026 COL LALIT YADAV RETD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn Deo Baghel, Mr. Shivam Choudhary Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Hooda; SPC, Mr. Shaurya Banshtu, Mr. Ratan Prakash; GP for R-1 to 4. Mr. Govil upadhyaya, GP. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand and Ms.Aditi Rathore, Advocates for R-5 and 6. 56 + W.P.(C) 4332/2026 and CM APPL. 21096-21097/2026 COL ANIL KHAJURIA RETD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn Deo Baghel, Mr. Shivam Choudhary Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Hooda; SPC, Mr. Shaurya Banshtu, Mr. Ratan Prakash; GP for R-1 to 4. Mr. Govil upadhyaya, GP. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand and Ms.Aditi Rathore, Advocates for R-5 and 6. 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 06/04/2026 at 13:26:20 57 + W.P.(C) 4333/2026 and CM APPL. 21098-21099/2026 COL RAGHURAJ SINGH RETD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn Deo Baghel, Mr. Shivam Choudhary Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Swati R.K. CGSC with Mr. Mohnish Balu Advocates for UOI. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand and Ms.Aditi Rathore, Advocates for R-5 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.04.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is right in contending that a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. It, however, be noted that dis-empanelment of the petitioners disentitles the petitioners to carry out ongoing work at Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. It thus appears that the respondents since have issued the order in Delhi and the appeal is decided by the Authority, which situates in Delhi, should not be construed to be the material, essential and integral part of cause of action. 3. It be also noted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) 1747/2026 and other connected matters, wherein the Court vide 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 06/04/2026 at 13:26:20 order dated 07.02.2026, refused to entertain the writ petitions on the same ground. 4. The Court has relegated the petitioners to the jurisdictional High Court. Pursuant to the directions passed by the Court, the petitioners seem to have approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The concerned High Court disposed of the petitions on 17.02.2026 with the directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioners’ pending appeal on or before 15.03.2026 and till that time, the Food Corporation of India (‘FCI’) was directed not to terminate the existing contract with the petitioners. 5. Pursuant to the said directions, the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order has decided the petitioner’s appeal. 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.,1 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: 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 06/04/2026 at 13:26:20 “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 aforesaid, the Court finds that the material, essential and integral cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the instant petitions stand dismissed along with all pending applications. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 2, 2026 Nc 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 06/04/2026 at 13:26:20