Dharmender Kumar Sharma S/O ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2016 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2016 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Dharmender Kumar Sharma S/O ... vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2022

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 487/2022

Dharmender Kumar Sharma S/o Krishan Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o D9/205, Second Floor, Akriti Apartments,
Chitrakoot Scheme, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Union    Of     India,       Through         Secretary,      Ministry   Of
       Information And Broadcasting, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
       Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.     You Tube Llc, Google India Private Limited, Unitech
       Signature Tower-Ii, Tower-B, Sector-15, Part-Ii, Village
       Silokhera, Gurugram-122001.
3.     Adhyatma Vigyan Satsang Kendra, Through Secretary/
       Manager/       Officer-In-Charge,               Near      Hotel    Lariya,
       Choupasani, P.o No. 41, Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Davessar For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

07/03/2022

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned supra, be pleased to:

A. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order(s) or Direction(s) of like nature to set aside the action of removal of videos of petitioner on his You Tube channel and subsequent termination of his You Tube channel by respondent No.2 and further direct respondent no.2 to restore the You Tube channel of petitioner which was maintained on You Tube portal with the name and style of "Gurudev Siyag Sidh Yoga Free" and allow him to operate the said channel.

(2 of 3) [CW-

487/2022]

B. Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."

Learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with

maintainability of the writ petition against the respondent No.2, a

private entity as no relief has been claimed against the respondent

No.1, relying upon a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court of India in case of Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib

Sehravardi & Ors.: AIR 1981 Supreme Court 487, contended

that since the State has deep and pervasive control over the affairs

of the respondent No.2 and also for the reason that the respondent

No.2 discharges the public function which is closely related to the

Government function, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He

submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has, vide its order

dated 11.01.2022, issued notice in Writ Petition No.553/2022,

Aarti Tikoo Vs. Union of India & Anr. involving identical

controversy. Learned counsel further submitted that since his

YouTube account has been terminated by the respondent No.2

without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity

of hearing, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the prayer clause reveals that entire relief has

been claimed against the respondent No.2, a limited liability

company. Although, it has been submitted that it is amenable to

the writ jurisdiction on account of the State having its deep and

pervasive control over its affairs and also for the reason that it

discharges the functions of public importance which are closely

(3 of 3) [CW-

487/2022]

related to the Government functions; but, the writ petition is bereft

of any such averment. The only averment in this regard is

contained in Para 17 of the writ petition which reads as under:

"That respondents are a state, hence squarely amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is also evident from that facts mentioned supra that respondent no.2 follows an arbitrary and inconsistent application of content moderation policy. Rather, it seems it has established a parallel regime of speech regulation along with the state. Hence, respondent no.2 discharges the functions of a 'state' considering the public nature of the functions it performs."

However, there is not a whisper of averment in the entire writ

petition as to true nature of functions being discharged by the

respondent No.2 or the same being of public importance.

In absence of any factual foundation to substantiate the

submission that the respondent No.1 has deep and pervasive

control over the affairs of the respondent No.2 or it discharges the

public functions which are akin to the Government functions, this

Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Insofar as order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of

Aarti Tikoo (supra) is concerned, it does not reveal facts of the

case or as to who are the parties and what was the controversy