Saksham Hospital And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS

$~57, 61, 69 & 77 to 84.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 13610/2025 & CM APPL. 55816/2025 SAKSHAM HOSPITAL AND ORS .....Petitioners UNION OF INDIA AND ORS advocates W.P.(C) 16170/2025 & CM APPL. 66204/2025 TANAY SOLAR SOLUTIONS LLP & ORS.

.....Petitioners Appearance not given.

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE & ORS. .....Respondents advocates Mr Nitinjya Chaudhry CGSC with Mr Rahul Mourya Adv for R-3.

W.P.(C) 1249/2026, CM APPL. 6202/2026 & CM APPL. 6203/2026 PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Petitioners The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr.

Gaurav Singh Sengar, Adv for R-1.

W.P.(C) 9344/2023 BHAGWANPUR INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION REGD UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Mr. Ashish K Dixit CGSC with Mr.

Umar Hashmi adv Mr Gautam Yadav Ms Iqra Sheikh, Advs.

advocate W.P.(C) 14360/2024 & CM APPL. 60116/2024 SMAU INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRY AND TRADE CHAMBERS AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj CGSC with Mr Amit Kumar Rana Advs.

W.P.(C) 15370/2024, CM APPL. 64449/2024 & CM APPL. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

64450/2024 M/S SUN LAYER ENERGY PVT. LTD.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Appearance not given.

W.P.(C) 6938/2025 & CM APPL. 31423/2025 MULTITECH INFRACON PVT LTD AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Mr. Shashank Dixit, Mr. Kunal Raj, Advs. for R-1.

Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Mr.Navneet Gupta advocates for State of Uttarakhand.

W.P.(C) 9014/2025 & CM APPL. 38406/2025 HIMALAYA ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED Mr. Animesh Kumar, Mr. Nishant Kumar, Dr. Sumit Kumar advocates.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC, Ms. Sonali Modi, Mr. Mukul Dev, Advocates.

advocates W.P.(C) 9520/2025 & CM APPL. 40217/2025 M/S TARAI GOLD CHEMICALS (P) LTD.AND ORS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC Ms.

Kavya Shukla Adv. Mr. Vineet Negi Adv. Mr. Vibhav V. Nath Adv. Ms.

Theresa Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC, Ms. Sonali Modi, Mr. Mukul Dev, Advocates.

W.P.(C) 9544/2025 & CM APPL. 40265/2025 M/S FUSION INDUSTRIES LTD.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr. Yash The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Basoya, Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advs.

advocates W.P.(C) 4182/2026, CM APPL. 20437/2026 & CM APPL. 20438/2026 SKYMAP PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.

Mr. Jeetender Gupta, Mr Kushagra Gupta, Mr. Abhay Saran, Advocates.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Mr. Gaurav Barathi SPC -UOI, Mr Chirantan Priyadarshan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 15.04.2026 (The matter has been taken up today, as 14.04.2026 was declared as a holiday on account of birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.) 1.

The petitioners in these petitions operate industrial units in the State of Uttarakhand, and the primary prayers are for directions to respondents to grant benefits promised to industrial units under the Industrial Development Scheme for the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, 2017 (Scheme) issued by the Central Government.

2.

In all these cases, the Court is of the considered opinion that the material, integral and essential part of cause of action has arisen outside the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

jurisdiction of this Court, and at the place where the units in question are situated.

3.

At the outset, it is seen that the Scheme does not have any application within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the application process for registration under the Scheme is an online process, and all compliances to be made by applicants thereunder, relate back to the States of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.

4.

The only reason the jurisdiction of this Court seems to have been invoked is the situs of the Central Government in New Delhi. While the impugned action has been taken within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the same is only a part of the cause of action. The mere factum of the Scheme being issued by the Central Government, should not be the sole factor to entertain the writ petition by this Court. 5.

In some of the cases, even the petitioners' head offices are in Delhi. However, the same too, would not alter the position insofar as the material part of the cause of action is concerned. The dominant factor would be the place where the units are situated i.e., in Uttarakhand. 6.

The Court in Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.1 in paragraphs 36 to 38 has held as under: "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 1 2026:DHC:1605 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

entertained by this Court.

37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital, but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court. The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken.

38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to "dominant facts", and facts which are "material, essential and integral" to the lis in question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and nonintegral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an overwhelming number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case, can this constant factum, which shall remain present in each case, be considered a "dominant fact" or a "material, essential and integral" fact? The answer must be in the negative."

7.

In view thereof, the petitions stand disposed of. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 8.

Petitions stand disposed of.

9.

All rights and contentions are left open.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 15, 2026/P The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.