Writ petitions against private entities are not maintainable under Article 226 unless public law elements are involved; termination from a private company does not invoke judicial review.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned Termination order bearing no.JSWSL/ VJNR/ 1043498/2025-26 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-A.

B. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the respondent company.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant F.Goudar appearing for the respondent.

3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is said to have been appointed on 07.02.2011 as an Assistant in the respondent - JSW Steel Ltd. The petitioner is then terminated from service. Termination of service is what is called in question in the subject petition.

4. The respondent is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor a wing of the Government. It is a Private Industry. Against a private entity, it is trite that the writ could not lie. The issue has been dealt with in elaboration by this Court in the case of United Brothers Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1600. This Court following the judgments of the Apex Court has held as follows:

“19. The Apex Court holds that in an appropriate case a writ petition against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, writ cannot be refused. Even a monetary claim is maintainable before this Court. The Apex Court deduces the said principle after considering the facts and entire spectrum of law. The Apex Court has clearly held that in an appropriate case writ petition against a State or instrumentality of State arising out of contractual obligation is maintainable and not a contract between the two private entities. The claim in ABL International's case was against Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand. The judgment in the case of Sanjana M. Wig (Ms.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited² (supra) was again against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited which is declared to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Contractual obligation arising out of a contract entered into between the State or its instrumentalities was again held to be maintainable under the writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court follows ABL International and holds as follows:

“14. A Division Bench of this Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553 : JT (2003) 10 SC 300] observed that in certain cases even a disputed question of fact can be gone into by the court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding : (SCC p. 572, para 28)

“28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1.) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary