Summary
A private exclusive-jurisdiction clause did not oust the Bombay High Court’s constitutional writ jurisdiction. The court had to consider the petition as a whole and decide whether to exercise its discretion, rather than rely solely on the federation’s bye-law selecting Chennai courts. The clause and availability of relief elsewhere could be relevant factors, including to forum convenience, but were not an absolute legal bar. The writ petition was restored for fresh consideration.
Issues
- Whether a private agreement selecting Chennai courts excluded the Bombay High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
- How the agreement and alternative forum should inform the court’s discretion.
Held
- Parties can select one among competent civil courts but cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. That contractual principle concerning ordinary civil suits does not permit a private agreement to extinguish constitutional writ jurisdiction. (¶ 9–10)
- Exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and its ordinary limits are self-imposed. Even an adequate alternative remedy does not create an absolute legal bar; the court must consider the particular facts and circumstances. (¶ 11–22)
- The High Court could consider the parties’ chosen forum within the full factual context and could decline relief on forum non conveniens grounds in an appropriate case. It could not abdicate its constitutional assessment solely because of the privately negotiated clause. (¶ 25–26)
- The Court did not determine the disaffiliation merits or direct how the High Court must ultimately exercise its discretion. Fresh consideration was required because the earlier decision rested exclusively on the clause. (¶ 25–27)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Writ Petition No.7770 of 2017 restored for fresh consideration. No costs; pending applications disposed of.