People’s Charioteer Organization (PCO) vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 960

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, JJ.
People’s Charioteer Organization (Pco) & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 885 of 2020
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Petitioner-in-person, for the Appellant; Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Amit K Pateriya, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Saraogi, Advocate, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Advocate, Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Kesar, Advocate, Mr. Rohan Trivedi, Advocate, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, Advocate, Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advocate, Mr. Prannoy Joe Sebastian, Advocate, Mr. B. K. Satija, Advocate, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, A.A.G., Mr. Anando Mukherjee, Advocate, Ms. Ekta Bharati, Advocate, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Banshal, Advocate, Ms. Rajeshawari Shankar, Advocate, Mr. Niroop Sukirithy, Advocate, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocate, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Advocate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Advocate, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Advocate, Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Pal, Advocate, Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Advocate, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka C., Advocate, Mr. D. K. Devesh, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Advocate, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Ms. Urmila Karpurkaystha, Advocate, Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate, Ms. Apoorv Kuup, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Sreemuthin, Advocate, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kr.sharma, Advocate, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advocate, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Aravindh S., Advocate, Mr. Aravindh.s, Advocate, Ms. Uma Bhuvaneswari. C, Advocate, Mr. Abbas.b, Advocate, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, Mr. prang Newmai, Advocate, Mr. D. Kumanan, Advocate, Mr. Shaikh F. Kalia, Advocate, Mr. Avijit mani Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate, Marbiang Khongwir, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate, Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Advocate, Ms. Ripul Swatri Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Devvrat Singh, Advocate, Ms. Muskan Surana, Advocate, Sriharsha Peechara, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi, Advocate, Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Advocate, Ms. Sarvshree, Advocate, Mr. Alok Sangwan,Sr.AAG Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Advocate, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Advocate, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Sreemuthin, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Prahuil Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ambuj Saraswat, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:- Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Article 32 of the Constitution of India - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, connected through video conferencing, did not respond. The prayer sought in the writ petition was found to be ungrantable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition as it found that the prayer sought could not be granted under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32.
Issues:
Whether the prayer sought in the writ petition can be granted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court's decision was based on its finding that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision:
The writ petition was dismissed and pending application(s), if any, were disposed of.

ORDER

1. Though the petitioner-in-person was connected through video conferencing, he did not respond.

2. Even otherwise, we find that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 960

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAB.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, JJ.People’s Charioteer Organization (Pco) & Anr. – AppellantsVersusUnion of India & Ors. – RespondentsWrit Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 885 of 2020Decided On : 29-03-2023

Related Judgments

People’s Charioteer Organization (PCO) VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 960

Chamkaur Singh VS State Of Punjab - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 278

Chioma Monica Austin Ogueri VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1531

Aysha Banu VS Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Uthama Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1215

SACHIN GUPTA vs UNION OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 415

Akbar Ali S/o Naina Mohammed Trustee, Madarasa Masjidun-Nabavi Sallalahualaihi Va Sallam Trust vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20242

SOUMYA C V vs K V P SUREKHA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4829

N.Subramanian vs The District Registrar - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49996

B. Saramma vs The Director - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 57699

S.Mohanavel vs The Inspector General of Registration - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48940

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, JJ.
People’s Charioteer Organization (Pco) & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 885 of 2020
Decided On : 29-03-2023