2026 Supreme(All) 572

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, JJ.
M/s Vinod Kumar Malik – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 35320 of 2025 
Decided On : 22-05-2026

A private commercial contract, even if performed within a government-regulated sector, does not involve public law elements unless there is pervasive state control or a direct performance of a sovereign function. Disputes arising from such determinable contracts are not subject to judicial review and must be resolved through alternative remedies.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 and Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Private entities - A body, public or private, should be judged by the ‘function’ test to determine amenability to writ jurisdiction - If a public duty or public function is involved, any body concerned with that duty would be subject to judicial scrutiny - However, mere operation in a regulated field or providing services in a public utility area does not ipso facto transform a private contract into a public law matter. (Paras 75, 78)

(B) Contract Law - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14(d) - Determinable contract - A contract which is in its nature determinable by either party cannot be specifically enforced - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to compel the continuation of such commercial arrangements or to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact arising from contractual breaches - In such cases, remedy lies in seeking compensation or damages in a forum of competent jurisdiction. (Paras 33, 89, 97)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a service provider engaged for manpower and operational assistance at a toll collection site, challenged the administrative termination of their service contract and the subsequent issuance of a fresh tender. The petitioner contended that the respondent entity performed a public function, was an instrumentality of a statutory authority, and that the termination was arbitrary. The respondent argued that the entity was a private commercial interest, the contract was purely determinable, and that judicial review was excluded.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondent entity was not an instrumentality of the state as it lacked deep and pervasive governmental control. The contract for services was a private, commercial agreement, and the alleged breaches and termination were matters governed strictly by the terms of the contract. The court observed that the existence of a statutory framework for facility maintenance did not elevate a private service contract to a public duty. Consequently, the dispute did not raise questions of public law.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent entity acts as an instrumentality of the state under constitutional law. (ii) Whether a service contract involving public utility sites qualifies for judicial review under writ jurisdiction. (iii) Whether this court maintains territorial jurisdiction despite an exclusion clause.

Ratio Decidendi: Amenability to writ jurisdiction depends on the performance of a public duty or statutory function. Absent evidence of deep state control or the exercise of sovereign power, a dispute arising from a private, determinable commercial contract regarding service defaults does not involve a public law element, necessitating recourse to alternative civil remedies instead of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Result: Petition dismissed.