Delhi High Court
Pooja Anand vs Basic Chemicals Cosmetics And Dyes ... on 28 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~100 & 114
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28.04.2025
(100)+LPA 271/2025
POOJA ANAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Vivek Kumar Tandon,
Ms.Prerna Tandon &
Mr.Harshit S Gahlot, Advs
versus
BASIC CHEMICALS COSMETICS AND DYES EXPORT
PROMOTION COUNCIL (CHEMEXCIL) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv.
with Mr.Amandeep Singh,
Mr.Pradeep Desodya, Mr.Vinay
Ranjan, Mr.Mohit Garg &
Mr.Rohan, Advs
Ms.Saumya Tandon,
CGSC/UOI with Mr.Amit
Acharya, GP
(114)+LPA 272/2025
POOJA ANAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Vivek Kumar Tandon,
Ms.Prerna Tandon &
Mr.Harshit S Gahlot, Advs
versus
BASIC CHEMICALS COSMETICS AND DYES EXPORT
PROMOTION COUNCIL (CHEMEXCIL) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv.
with Mr.Amandeep Singh,
Mr.Pradeep Desodya, Mr.Vinay
Ranjan, Mr.Mohit Garg &
Mr.Rohan, Advs
Mr.Arjun Mahajan, SPC for
UOI with Mr.Apoorv Upmanyu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed LPA 271/2025 & LPA 272/2025 Page 1 of 4
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:02.05.2025
13:18:54
& Mr.Harsh Vashisht, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. As the learned counsel for the respondents enters appearance,
the caveat stands discharged.
CM APPL. 24837/2025 (Exemption) in LPA 271/2025
CM APPL. 24964/2025 (Exemption) in LPA 272/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 24838/2025 in LPA 271/2025
CM APPL. 24965/2025 in LPA 272/2025
3. These applications have been filed seeking condonation of 31
days' delay in re-filing of the appeals.
4. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed
and the delay is condoned.
5. The applications are disposed of.
6. These appeals have been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi
High Court Act, 1966, challenging the Judgment dated 23.01.2025,
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 355/2025
and W.P.(C). 16740/2023, both titled Ms Pooja Anand v. Basic
Chemicals Cosmetic and Dyes Export Promotion Council
(Chemexcil) & Anr, dismissing the said Writ Petitions by holding that
the respondent, that is, Basic Chemicals Cosmetics & Dyes Export
Promotion Council (Chemexcil), is not a 'State' or local or other
authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
and, therefore, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is not maintainable.
7. Before the learned Single Judge, and also before us, the learned
counsel for the appellant fairly admits that the issue of maintainability
of a Writ Petition against a similarly situated organisation, namely, the
Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council ('GJEPC'), was
considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr Jitarani Udgata v.
Union of India & Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3449. The
Division Bench of this Court held that the said organisation is not a
State or other authority within the meaning in the said terms under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A Special Leave Petition
against the said judgment, being Civil Appeal No 6574/2024, has been
filed, and notice on the same has been issued by the Supreme Court
vide Order dated 20.03.2023. The same is pending before the Supreme
Court.
8. He further places reliance on the Judgment of the Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sunirmal Kumar Roy v. Union
of India and Others, 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 272, to submit that in the
said Judgment, the respondent has been held to be falling within the
definition of the word State, as defined under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
9. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent submits that the Judgment in Sunirmal
Kumar Roy (supra) was specifically considered by the learned Single
Judge in Jitarani Udgata v. Union of India and Another, 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 3657, and was expressly disagreed with. The said
judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment
referred above. He submits that merely because an appeal against the
Judgment of the Division Bench is pending consideration before the
Supreme Court, this Court, being a Coordinate Bench of the Court
which has already rejected a similar plea as the one raised by the
appellant herein, cannot take a different view.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
11. As rightly contended, we are presently bound by the Judgment
of the Coordinate Bench in Dr Jitarani Udgata (supra) and see no
reason to take a different view therefrom.
12. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court.
13. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 28, 2025/rv/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
