Patna High Court
Raju Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A private sugar company does not come within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Kumar Ray, filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a direction for the respondents, including the State of Bihar and a private sugar company, to pay him Rs. 15,86,350 for services rendered as a transport and commission agent. The petitioner alleged that the private sugar company (Respondent No.5) had withheld the dues without justification. The Court examined whether the private company could be deemed a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, which would make the writ jurisdiction appropriate. It held that the sugar company is a private entity and does not fall within the definition of State under Article 12. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed non‑maintainable, and the Court dismissed it, directing the petitioner to pursue his claim under ordinary civil law remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether a private sugar company can be classified as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution for purposes of writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- civil remedy
- Article 12
- private company
- payment of dues
- state action
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16597 of 2025
======================================================
Raju Kumar Ray, S/o Late Subh Narayan Ray, R/o Village Panchhor, Ward
No. 07, P.O. and P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director of Industries, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
4. The S.D.O., Riga, District Sitamarhi.
5. The Managing Director, Riga, Sugar Company Ltd., Village P.O. and P.S.
Riga, District Sitamarhi.
6. The Accounts Officer, Riga Sugar Company Ltd., 14, Netaji Subhas Road,
2nd Floor, Kolkata- 1.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (09).
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“…...the petitioner craves
indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for
direction to the respondents for payment
of the dues amount of Rs. 15,86,350/- to
the petitioner who has worked as
transport and commission agent under
the Respondent No. 5 but the dues
amount of the petitioner is not being paid
without any justification.”
3. A perusal of the relief sought for by the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.16597 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
shows that the petitioner is claiming payment of the amount due
to him from the Respondent No. 5 which admittedly is a private
sugar company. The said private sugar company does not come
within the meaning of Article 12 (State). Therefore, the present
writ petition is not maintainable, the present writ petition is
dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies
as available to him under the Civil Law.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.