Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
Mandamus cannot be issued against private individuals; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner was appointed as a peon on an outsourced basis by Respondent No.5 on 19 December 2024. He was barred from working from 16 September 2025 without any notice and subsequently approached the Industrial Tribunal, which issued an order on 25 February 2026. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking mandamus to compel the private respondent to allow him to work. The Court examined the record and held that the appointment was made by a private entity, against which a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate common law remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private respondent for an employment appointment made under an outsourcing arrangement.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the termination of services by a private entity.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- private respondent
- outsourcing
- employment termination
- common law remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7297 of 2026
Mohammad Shahnawaz
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Diwakar Mishra, Rajeev Kumar
Shukla, Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Petitioner was given appointment on the post of peon by way of
outsourcing vide letter dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5.
2. It is argued that the petitioner was not permitted to work without any
notice from 16.09.2025, hence a letter has been written by him to the
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-3, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur on
16.02.2026 which was decided by the Administrative Officer, Industrial
Tribunal vide order dated 25.02.2026, hence the present writ petition.
3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. From perusal of record, it is clear that petitioner was given appointment
by the private-respondent namely Respondent No.5 which cannot be
granted under writ jurisdiction. Law in this connection is well settled that
mandamus cannot be issued against the private individuals and the
appropriate remedy lies under the common law.
5. In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed with the
liberty to avail the common law remedy, if so advised.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 14, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…