Apm Industries Ltd v. Central Ground Water Authority & ANR.
$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1393/2026, CM APPL. 6856/2026, CM APPL. 6857/2026 & CM APPL. 6858/2026 APM INDUSTRIES LTD .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate; Mr.
Arvind Rudhra, Advocate;
Mr.
Saurabh Panwar, Advocates.
versus CENTRAL GROUND WATER AUTHORITY & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr.
Rajesh Kumar (SPC) ,Mr.
Sarthak Rana(G.P)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
% 02.02.2026 1.
The petition is for directions to the Central Ground Water Authority (respondent no. 1) to issue a 'No-Objection Certificates' (NOC) for the periods between 08.12.2023 to 07.12.2025 and 08.12.2025 to 07.12.2027 with a sanctioned limit of 325 KLD.
2.
The petitioner runs a textile spinning unit at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and had filed an application before respondent no. 1, seeking permission for groundwater abstraction for the said unit, as per the 'Guidelines to regulate and control ground water extraction in India, 2020' framed under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
3.
The sole reason for approaching this Court seems to be that the 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 05/02/2026 at 12:43:05
respondent authorities are located within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, considering that the relief sought is in respect of an industrial unit in the State of Rajasthan, the essential and integral part of the cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 4.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,1 has examined the aspect of maintainability of petitions where the cause of action arise within the jurisdiction of different High Courts, and 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] .]"
5.
Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and invoking the principle of forum coveniens, the Court declined to entertain the instant petition. The petitioner shall be free to take appropriate remedy before the competent Court of jurisdiction.
6.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 2, 2026/P/AMG 1 (2004) 6 SCC 254.
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 05/02/2026 at 12:43:05