An appeal dismissing a reviewer of the Single Judge who held that the disengagement of a private company contract appointee was not amenable to writ jurisdiction as the company was not subject to writ jurisdiction.
The writ appeal was dismissed on the ground that it lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 129 of 2018
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
2
For Appellant Shri Alok Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/UOI Shri S.K. Dewangan, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Judgment
Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ.
01/08/2018
Sd/Sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Chief Justice Judge
Gowri
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disengagement of a contract-based appointee of a private company is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the Single Judge committed any error in law in dismissing the writ petition regarding the appellant's removal from a private appointment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samman Padwar
Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Poverty Alleviation
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development
State Urban Development Agency Chhattisgarh
The Mission Director, Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission
The Collector Cum President, Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
