The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of obtaining consent from the Central Government under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure before suing a foreign State, especially in contractual disputes.

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the 5th respondent -Union of India to give suitable directions to respondents 1 to 4 to strictly implement the proceedings dated 25.04.2006 so as to settle the dues to the extent of Rs.2,99,454/- together with difference in the overtime payable to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a Army Officer retired from Indian Army. He had secured appointment as a Security Manager with the first respondent British Deputy High Commission, Chennai. It is unnecessary to traverse the other averments except to state that the petitioners contract with the High Commission came to an end on 312. 2008. It is the claim of the petitioner that as per the terms of the contract and also the circular of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, he is entitled to get certain amounts. The petitioner had sent a representation to the British High Commission.

3. The Deputy Head of Mission informed the petitioner that the British High Commission has a fair and well-established framework of conditions and policies of service for locally engaged staff and the model contract given by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India is only recommendatory and not binding on any Diplomatic Mission bound by the Vienna Convention. The petitioner through his counsel had issued a notice to the High Commission and thereafter came forward to file the present writ petition.

4. Initially, the Registry of this Court raised its objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The matter was directed to be posted before this court to hear the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Mr.N.Umapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Vienna Convention is binding on all foreign diplomatic missions. The United Kingdom is also a party to the Vienna Convention and as per the circular issued by Ministry of External Affairs, the petitioner is entitled to get his amounts. Since the High Commission had refused to pay the amount, the writ petition is maintainable. This Court is unable to entertain such a contention.

6. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

7. The word any person only means that apart from the State within the meaning of Article 12, the power to issue writ is available against any person who is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. But in such circumstances, it must be seen whether the person referred to in Article 226 has a duty enjoined under a statute. In the absence of the body being a State within the meaning of Article 12 or if it is not an any instrumentality of the State, the person against whom a writ can be issued must have a statutory obligation. Otherwise, the Court cannot issue any writ. It must also be noted that all the Foreign Missions including their Consular officer are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court unless they were imposed with any statutory duty in India.

8. In this Context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute reported in (2003) 4 SCC 225. In paragraphs 27 and 28 it was observed as follows:-

"27. It is true that a writ under Article 226 also lies against a “person” for “any other purpose”. The power of the High Court to issue such a writ to “any person” can only mean the power to issue such a writ to any person to whom, according to the well-established principles, a writ lay. That a writ may issue to an appropriate person for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III is clear enough from the language used. But the words