Allahabad High Court
M/S MAA VAISHNO FILLING STATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is not maintainable because the respondents are private entities not covered by Article 12, and thus the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226.
Summary
M/S Maa Vaishno Filling Station filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing private respondents to pay Rs.13,20,000 for alleged breach of contract relating to branding and compensation. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the private respondents, being non‑state actors, fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12, which is a prerequisite for the High Court's writ jurisdiction. It held that the respondents are private entities and not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. Consequently, the Court found the petition non‑maintainable under Article 226 and dismissed it, allowing the petitioner to pursue other appropriate legal remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ of mandamus against private respondents.
- Whether a contract claim for payment and compensation can be enforced through a writ petition.
Subjects
- Article 226
- Article 12
- writ jurisdiction
- private entity
- mandamus
- contract claim
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17521 of 2026
M/S Maa Vaishno Filling Station
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for the
following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to
the respondent no.3 and 4 to pay the petitioner Rs.13,20,000/- against the
branding of 'Nayara Energy' as well as towards the compensation of
Gentry Browser expeditiously along with up to date interest within the
period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."
3. It appears from the record that some money is due to the petitioner from
respondent nos.3 & 4 under a contract. The respondent nos.3 & 4 are the
private entities and are not State under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, therefore, present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is not maintainable.
4. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to
avail appropriate remedy available under the law.
May 5, 2026
Sattyarth
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…