Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
SEBY C ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
RAVINDRAN PILLAI @ DR RAVI PILLAI – Respondent
WA 649/2025
SEBY C ANTONY(Party-In-Person)
A writ petition against private parties not defined as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 - Emigration Act, 1983 - Writ petition claiming damages dismissed - The appellant contended that the 1st respondent is liable for punitive damages due to employment with forged insurance documents - The learned Single Judge concluded that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents do not fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 - The appellant argued violation of fundamental rights under Article 23 and liability under Section 36 of the Emigration Act - The court upheld the dismissal, stating no error was committed by the learned Single Judge. (Paras 3, 5, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that a writ cannot be issued against private parties not defined as 'State' under Article 12, affirming the principle that private entities are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was employed by a company in Kuwait with forged workman insurance documents, claiming the company is liable for punitive damages.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld, confirming it was not maintainable as the respondents do not qualify as 'State' under Article 12.
Issues: The main issues were whether the writ petition was maintainable and if the respondents could be held liable under Article 23 and the Emigration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no error in the learned Single Judge's conclusion that the respondents do not fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12, thus the writ petition was not maintainable.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present writ appeal assails the judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.1673 of 2025 whereby the writ petition claiming damages has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed by Nasser Al Hajri Partners General Trading and General Constructing Company, Kuwait, owned by the 1st respondent. The company had employed the appellant with forged workman insurance documents, therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the 1st respondent is liable to pay punitive damages to the appellant.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petition itself is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent - authorities are not discharging any public function or duty and they do not fall within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The 1st respondent is impleaded in his individual capacity. Respondents 2 to 6 are situated in the Republic of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the 7th respondent is the Designated Officer of the Embassy of Kuwait. In view of the afore said, no writ petition lies and therefore, dismissed the writ petition reserving the right of the appellant to workout his remedies, in accordance with law.
4. The appellant appears in person and is referred to by name, i.e., Sri Seby C. Antony.
5. Sri.Seby C. Antony contended that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition and not considering the fact that it is a clear violation of fundamental right under Article 23 of the Constitution of India and the same is attributable to the private parties and also as per Section 36 of the Emigration Act, 1983 , the Director or the person in-charge of the Company affairs are liable to be prosecuted. In view of the afore, the writ petition ought to have been entertained and allowed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that no writ can be issued against the respondents, as they do not fall within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition and therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard Sri.Seby C. Antony and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. On perusal of the judgment impugned it is seen that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable, as none of the respondents fall within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Upon careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No interference is warranted in the present writ appeal. The writ appeal is bereft of merit and substance; accordingly, it is dismissed.
