SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Jagjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 7107 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 21821 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Rajesh Yadav, Advocate, Gaurav Kokar, Advocate, Lakshay Raheja, Advocate, Adab Singh Kapoor, Advocate, Shefali Menezes, Advocate, Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Prashant Bajaj, Advocate, Shekhar Vashisht, Advocate, Manish Mohan, Advocate, Devendra Kumar, Advocate, Vedansh Anand, Advocate

For a private body to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction, it must be discharging public functions akin to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.

Headnote:

Election Notices - Private Company - Companies Act, 2013 - [Section 8] - The court discussed the maintainability of a writ petition against a private body and emphasized the need for the private body to be discharging public functions to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The court referred to the Memorandum of association of the respondent no. 4 and the nature of functions being carried out by the body to determine if it is discharging any public function. The court concluded that the respondent no. 4, being a private company, is not discharging any public functions and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged election notices issued by the election officers for conducting elections for the management committee of a private company, alleging that the elections were not being conducted in accordance with the articles of association of the company.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent no. 4, being a private company, was not discharging any public functions and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition against a private company and whether the private company was discharging any public functions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a private body to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction, it must be discharging public functions akin to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the respondent no. 4, being a private company, was not discharging any public functions.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the election notices dated 28.02.2022 and 18.04.2022 issued by the respondent nos.1 & 2, the election officers appointed for conducting elections for the management committee of the respondent no.4/all India Motor Transport Congress for the term 2022-24. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to initiate the process of conducting elections after 01.07.2022, which he claims is necessary as per the articles of association of the respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the Karnataka Freight Movers Pvt. Ltd and claims to be a lifetime member of the respondent no.4 company, as also a member of its 'bye-laws committee'. While the respondent no.4 is a private company registered under Section 8 of the Companies act, 2013 having been established, inter alia with the object to protect and promote the interests of persons engaged in the business of motor transport in the country, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are the Election Officers appointed to conduct elections for the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4 for the term 2022-24. The respondent no.4 is a private company, which had been established to cater to the needs and interests of the transporters across India.

3. an election notice for conducting elections for the post of members of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4/all India Motor Transport Congress for the term, 2021-2023 was issued on 21.10.2021 by the respondent no.1 who was appointed as the Chief Election Officer by the respondent no.4. The elections could, however, not take place in 2021 and were therefore, deferred for the term, i.e., 2022-2024.

4. On 28.02.2022, upon an election notice being issued by the respondent nos.1 & 2, the petitioner learnt that the respondent no.2 had also been appointed as an Election Officer to conduct the elections for the Management Committee of the respondent no.4 company. It was stipulated in the said election notice that on account of delay in the election process, the term of the Management Committee would stand revised from the year 2021-23 to 2022-24.

5. aggrieved by the issuance of the election notice, the petitioner made representations to the respondent nos.1 & 2 on 24.03.2022 which was followed by a representation to the respondent no.4 on 28.03.2022. These representations of the petitioner, wherein he had raised his grievances against the proposed elections, did not elicit any response from the respondents and on 18.04.2022, the respondent nos. 1 & 2, issued yet another election notice for the elections to the Management Committee of the respondent no.4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the election notices dated 28.02.2022 and 18.04.2022 and is seeking a direction for holding the elections strictly in accordance with the articles of association of the respondent no.4.

6. The petition is vehemently opposed by the respondents by first contending that the petitioner, not being a member of respondent no.4, has no locus to approach this Court. They contend that merely because the petitioner is the Managing Director of a company, which is a member of the respondent no.4, it would not entitle him to challenge the election thereof and that too, without placing on record any resolution to this effect by M/s Karnataka Freight Movers Private Limited, of which he is a Managing Director. They then contend that even otherwise, since the respondent no.4 being a purely private body, is only one of the various associations established to cater to the interests of the members of the transport fraternity across India, no writ petition would be maintainable against the respondent no.4. They submit that, apart from the respondent no.4 company, various other associations, including the all India Transport Welfare association (aITWa), the Bus Operators Confederation of India (BOCI), automobile and Contain

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top