Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12923 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri A.K. Singh Bais, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to provide his legal claim with interest.
This is a vague relief. Even otherwise the matter relates to the U.P. Sahkari Sugar Mill Ltd. and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari, Chini Mills Ltd. Sultanpur Vs. Satrughan Nishad and others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 639 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has held as under:
"9.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents submitted that even if the Mill is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, writ application can be entertained as mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person or authority which would include any private person or body. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that mandamus can be issued against private person or body only if infraction alleged is in performance of public duty. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samarak Trust and others v. V.R.Rudani and others (1989) 2 SCC 691 in which this Court examined the various aspects and distinction between an authority and a person and after analysis of the decisions referred in that regard came to the conclusion that it is only in the circumstances when the authority or the person performs a public function or discharges a public duty that Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. In the cases of K.Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another (1997) 3 SCC 571 and VST Industries Ltd. v.VST Industries Workers' Union and another, (2001) 1 SCC 298, the same principle has been reiterated. Further, in the case of VST Industries Ltd. (supra), it was observed that manufacture and sale of cigarettes by a private person will not involve any public function. This being the position in that case, this Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, the Mill is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar which, on the same analogy, would not involve any public function. Thus, we have no difficulty in holding that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have been invoked."
When the Court was going to pass this order the counsel for the petitioner requesting that the matter may come up in July, 2018.
This is nothing but down right Bench hunting.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within one month from today failing which the Registrar General shall intimate the concerned District Magistrate/Collector about the same and thereafter the concerned District Magistrate/Collector shall recover the amount of cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within one month thereafter and shall deposit the same with the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court. The Registrar General shall then transfer the said amount of Rs.5,000/-to the account of the UP. State Legal Services Authority.
Let a copy of this order be also placed before the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 N Tiwari