Alka Tandon v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 27 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:1468-DB
Najmi Waziri; Sudhir Kumar Jain
LPA 642/2019
2023:DHC:1468-DB
constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that a joint venture equally owned by a government entity and a private entity does not qualify as 'State' under Article 12, and thus is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Full Text
Translation output
2023/DHC/001468
LPA 642/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.02.2023
LPA 642/2019 & CM APPL. 43726/2019
ALKA TANDON ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Lovish Sharma, Mr. Gobind Malhotra, Mr. Amardeep Dingh, Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Rehan Saini, Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Mr. Akshit Kapur, Advocates for
SBI/R-2.
Mr. Sameer Nandwani and Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocates for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
JUDGMENT

1. This appeal impugns the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 6753/2018, insofar as it has held that R-3 is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reason for so concluding is as under: 2023/DHC/001468 LPA 642/2019

“9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. She states that respondent no.3 is a private company formed as a joint venture between State Bank of India Limited and Insurance Australia Group. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that both the said entities have equal representation on the Board of respondent no. 3 company.”

2. During the course of the arguments, it has not been disputed that the promoter shares held in the Joint Venture by both State Bank of India and Insurance Australia Group is equal. That being the position, it cannot be said that the joint venture between the aforesaid entities would fall under the definition of ‘State’ or that SBI has a deep and pervasive control over it. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue his remedies as may be available in law.

4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J FEBRUARY 27, 2023