Employee challenged dismissal from UTI Asset Management Company by writ petition filed in 2006. The court held the petition not maintainable since the company had been disinvested and was no longer 'State' under Article 12, following binding precedents, with liberty to pursue alternative remedies.
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.
$~88
% Decided on: 21.01.2025
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kumar Mehdiratta and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:2 3.01.2025 21:11:01
W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 1 of 5
the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in respect of a service dispute against it. It is stated therein that respondent No. 2 is professionally managed by its Board of Directors, and does not function under the financial or administrative control of UOI in any manner. Its shares are listed, and 30.75% are owned by the public.
1 Paragraph No. 2 of writ petition.
2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8229.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:2 3.01.2025 21:11:01
W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 2 of 5
has not considered the fact that the respondent-company was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court when the writ petition was filed.
“29. It is thus, seen that various High Courts across the country have taken a consistent view over a period of time on the pertinent question presented for consideration that the subsequent event i.e. the disinvestment of the Government company and its devolution into a private company would make the company immune from being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if the litigant had entered the portals of the Court while the employer was the Government. The only exception is the solitary judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), which was distinguished by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat (supra) and rightly so, in our opinion, we have no hesitation in holding that the view taken in the judgments of Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat (supra) (by the High Court of Gujarat); Asulal Loya (supra)(by the High Court of Delhi) and Tarun Kumar Banerjee (supra)(by the High Court of Bombay) is the correct exposition on this legal issue and we grant full imprimatur to the said proposition of law.
xxx xxx xxx
33. Once the respondent No. 3(AIL) ceased to be covered by the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it could not have been subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2605.
4 Supra (Note 1), paragraphs 60 and 68.
5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:2 3.01.2025 21:11:01
W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 3 of 5
xxx xxx xxx
38. The question of issuing a writ would only arise when the writ petition is being decided. Thus, the issue about exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and decision. The respondent No. 3(AIL)employer was a government entity on the date of filing of the writ petitions, which came to be decided after a significant delay by which time, the company had been disinvested and taken over by a private player. Since, respondent No. 3 employer had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. The learned Division Bench has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been non-suited in the case. It is only that the appellants would have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy. Thus, the question No. 2 is decided against the appellants.
39. By no stretch of imagination, the delay in disposal of the writ petitions could have been a ground to continue with and maintain the writ petitions because the forum that is the High Court where the writ petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period. Hence, the question No. 3 is also decided against the appellants.”6
6 Emphasis supplied.
7 (2003) 1 SCC 726.
8 Supra (note 4).
9 Supra (note 6).
10 Gregory Patrao and Ors v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and Ors. .[ (2022) 10 SCC 461] (paragraph 16).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:2 3.01.2025 21:11:01
W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 4 of 5
maintainable, and is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to invoke alternative remedies available to him in law. The petitioner may seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, before the concerned forum, for the period the present writ petition has been pending in this Court. Mr. Shishodia states that respondent No. 2 will not object to such exclusion. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are reserved.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 21, 2025 SS/AD/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:2 3.01.2025 21:11:01
W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition against a disinvested company that ceased to be 'State' remains maintainable because it was filed when the employer was still a government entity?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and othersFollowed¶5
2023 SCC OnLine Del 8229 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and OthersFollowed¶6
2024 SCC OnLine Del 2605 · Who else cites this
R.S. Madireddy v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶9
2024 SCC OnLine SC 965 · Who else cites this
Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P.Distinguished¶10
(2003) 1 SCC 726 · Who else cites this
Gregory Patrao and Ors v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and Ors.Relied on¶10
(2022) 10 SCC 461 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Om Prakash Lakhina
UOI & ORS.
Prateek Jalan
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
