Mohammad Rafeek vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13790 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14890 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohammad Rafeek
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Singh Patel,Muni Raj Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer.

Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.4-Reliance Jio Infratel Private Ltd. to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner with enhanced rate as provided in the license agreement and for a direction to respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Prayagraj to take necessary action to evict the respondent no.4 from the premises of the petitioner as the period of agreement is already expired.

At the very outset, learned State Law Officer has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that present writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred mainly against respondent no.4, which is not a 'State' under Art.12 of the Constitution and its actions are also not amenable for judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of M.K. Gandhi & Ors. v. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow & Ors., 2005 (4) ESC 2265; judgment dated 21.5.2019 passed in Writ-C No.17419 of 2019 (Vipin Pandey v. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. & Anr.) and the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court dated 12.1.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.257-259 of 2022 (Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors.). He submits that in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he may file civil suit in the matter. It is further submitted that in case the terms of the agreement are being flouted, the petitioner has also alternative efficacious remedy to approach before the Arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As such it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned State Law Officer and as such we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 2.5.2023

SP/