Pritam Singh vs. Union Of INDIA Th.Power Department And Ors.
Held
The Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against a private company registered under the Companies Act, as such an entity does not fall within the definition of 'State' or 'instrumentality of the State' as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that the writ jurisdiction is primarily intended to be exercised against governmental authorities and bodies performing public functions. Since respondents 2 and 3 were identified as a private company, the petitioner's right to seek a mandamus against them was not established. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed misconceived and was dismissed. No specific GST provisions were discussed in relation to the payment dispute itself, as the dismissal was based on the maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity.
Facts
The petitioner, Pritam Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to release payment of Rs. 7,17,000/- along with 18% interest. The petitioner had executed work, specifically laying an HT line, in Uttarakhand. Respondents 2 and 3, who are stated to be a company registered under the Companies Act, were demanding a GST certificate from the State of Uttarakhand before releasing the payment due to the petitioner for the work performed. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to compel these respondents to make the payment.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private company registered under the Companies Act, which is neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to compel the release of payment for work done. The petitioner argued that the respondents were withholding payment and demanding a GST certificate, implying a contractual or statutory obligation to release the funds. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to enforce this obligation. The respondents, identified as a private company, contended that the writ petition was misconceived as the court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not exercisable against private entities not performing public functions or not falling within the ambit of 'State' or 'other authorities' under Article 12.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
In the present petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to forthwith release and make payment of an amount of Rs. 7,17,000/- along with 18% interest.
The petitioner appears to have executed some work in the form of laying down of HT line in the state of Uttrakhand. It is stated that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are demanding a GST certificate, to be issued by the State of Uttrakhand before releasing the amount which the petitioner is entitled to receive on account of work done.
Clearly, the writ if being sought against the company registered under the Companies Act, which is neither State nor the instrumentality of the State, as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. No right could lie against the authority, which does not fall otherwise within the meaning of Article 12. Petition is clearly misconceiv
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.