Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1178 Chatt
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1068 of 2022
Ashok Kumar Rajwade S/o. Heera Lal Rajwade, Aged About 40 Years
R/o. Ward No. 02, Uparpara Village Ramanuj Nagar District Surajpur
(Chhattisgarh).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. CSC Wi-Fi Choupal Services India Private Limited 238 Okhla
Industrial Area Phase 3 New Delhi 110020.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Communication And Information Technology,
Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan 20 Ashok Road New Delhi
110001.
3. Bharat Broadband Network Limited, Third Floor Office Block I Eest
Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023, Email- [email protected]
4. Shri Niraj Hardeo Sr Manager. CSC Wi Fi Chaupal Services India
Private Limited- 238 Okhla, Industrial Area Phase 3 New Delhi
110020.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Brajendra Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
07.03.2022
Heard Mr. Brajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General,
appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3.
2. The respondent No. 1, which is engaged in the business of providing
solutions and services related to internet technologies and internet
connectivity in Rural Areas and Semi-Urban Areas, had entered into an
agreement with the petitioner to avail services of the petitioner.
3. The writ petition is filed with the grievance that the respondent
No.4, who is the senior manager of the respondent No. 1, had terminated
the agreement unilaterally by a letter dated 08.11.2021, without affording
an opportunity of showing cause
4. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits
that the instant petition is not maintainable as the respondent No. 1 is a
private limited company and also, as under clause 16 of the agreement
dated 22.01.2020, the parties had agreed to submit to exclusive
jurisdiction of the Courts of Delhi in respect of all disputes arising out of
or in connection with the agreement.
5. Mr. Singh submits that the respondent No. 1 is an authority under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the instant writ
petition is maintainable. He has also placed reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
The International Airport Authority of India & Others , reported in AIR 1979
SC 1628.
6. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, had come to the
conclusion that the International Airport Authority of India comes within
the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
7. The name of respondent No. 1 is CSC WI-FI Choupal Services
India Private Limited, which itself demonstrates that the same is a private
limited company.
8. In order to establish that an entity comes within the ambit of an
authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has to
place relevant materials on record. Except for making a bald statement
that the respondent No. 1 comes within the definition of a 'State', no
material particulars have been laid to show how the respondent No. 1,
which is private limited company, comes within the meaning of Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving
liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law, if so
advised.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Gautam Chourdiya)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!