This order dismissed a special leave petition against a Single Judge's ruling that the appeal was not maintainable. The bench concluded that the underlying dispute did not involve public law elements, thereby upholding the view that writ jurisdiction was improper.
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.
$~52
PRADEEP GOSWAMI ..... Appellant Through : Sh. B.S. Chowdhary and Ms. Snehlata Rana, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Kavindra Gill, Advocate, for UOI. Sh. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Sh. Anurag Tiwari and Ms. Akshita Katoch, Advocates, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R % 11.10.2017
Learned Single Judge had ruled against the maintainability of the writ proceedings on the ground that the respondents – National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited was neither a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution nor was it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In so concluding, the learned Single Judge relied upon several previous decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. Most notably, the judgment in National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. NAFED Processed Food Cooperative Federation of India Employees Union and Ors. 2011 (58) DRJ 799. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Federal Bank Ltd. v.
Page 1 of 2
Sagar Thomas and Ors. 2003 (10) SCC 733 and K.K. Saxena v. International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage 2015 (4) SCC 670.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, including the Articles of Association, NAFED and given that the dispute which was the subject matter of writ proceedings did not touch upon any public law element, we are of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment.
There is no merit in the appeal; it is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
OCTOBER 11, 2017/ajk
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-maintainability should be set aside.
Whether the dispute involved public law elements sufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. NAFED Processed Food Cooperative Federation of India Employees Union and Ors.Referred¶9
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. NAFED Processed Food Cooperative Federation of India Employees Union and Ors. 2011 (58)
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Ors.Referred
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Ors. 2003 (10) SCC 733 · Who else cites this
K.K. Saxena v. International Commission for Irrigation and DrainageReferred
K.K. Saxena v. International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage 2015 (4) SCC 670 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Goswami
Union of India
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited
S. Ravindra Bhat
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
