Allahabad High Court
Zeba vs State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, ... on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5493 of 2022
Petitioner :- Zeba
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Dist.-Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Mishra Atal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, following prayers have been made:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to take interest upon interest/compound interest/penal interest upon the petitioner's loan as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of petition no.(C) 476 of 2020, Small Scale Industrial Manufacture Association vs. Union of India.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take remaining amount as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in writ petition no.(C) 476 of 2020, Small Scale Industrial Manufacture Association vs. Union of India.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the vehicle of petitioner bearing No.UP 30 AN 8122 which was forcefully and illegally occupied by the opposite parties no.04 to 06 on 07.4.2022 by violating the mandate of judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 23.3.21 in writ petition no.(C) 476 of 2020, in the interest of justice.
(iv) issue any other order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner."
It appears that the petitioner has purchased some vehicle from respondent no.6, which is a purely private entity. It further appears that the purchase of said vehicle by the petitioner was financed by M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd which also is a purely private entity. It also appears that on account of alleged default made by the petitioner in paying monthly installments to the Finance Company, the vehicle in question appears to have been seized.
When we inquired from the petitioner as to how M/s Mahendra and Mahendra Finance Service Ltd and M/s Narain Automobiles will be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Umrao vs. Managing Director Induslnd Bank Ltd. and others, reported in [2012(4) ADJ 188]. He has further stated that in somewhat similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court had entertained Writ-C No.546 of 2022 which was filed by the petitioner of said writ petition against the Finance Company, which is respondent nos.4 and 5 in this petition as well.
Respondent nos.4,5 and 6 are purely private entities and by no stretch of imagination, can they be said to be covered within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
All the three prayers made in the writ petition are for issuing a writ of mandamus which, ordinarily, is available for compelling a statutory or public authority to perform its duties. The writ of mandamus or any such direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been prayed for by the petitioner cannot be issued to a private entity like the Finance Company or a automobile show-room.
So far as the judgment in the case of Ram Umrao (supra) is concerned, the said judgment does not deal with the issue relating to Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
As far as the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.546 of 2022 is concerned, the said order also does not deal with the issue relating to Article 12 of the Constitution of India; rather the order was passed on the consent extended to the cause of the petitioner of the said petition by learned counsel representing the private entity in the writ petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that respondent nos.4,5 and 6 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no relief, so far as the State-respondents are concerned, has been sought in this petition.
Since no relief has been sought against the State-respondent in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.
However, we may observe that notwithstanding dismissal of this petition, it will always be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy which may be available to her under law before any other forum/court including remedy of initiating criminal proceedings in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur, (2007) 2 SCC 711.
Order Date :- 25.8.2022/Renu
