Allahabad High Court
M/S AZHARI BRICK WORKSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute is a private matter and the Court cannot issue directions against private respondents under Article 226.
Summary
M/S Azhari Brick Works filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate to consider its representation dated 16 July 2026 and to protect it from dispossession of its brick kiln. The petition alleged a breach of agreement with a private respondent (respondent no.5) and asked the Court to intervene. The Court held that the dispute is essentially a private contractual matter between the petitioner and the private respondent, and therefore the High Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ against a private party. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies. No specific statutes or precedents were cited.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued against a private respondent in a private dispute.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition seeking protection from dispossession when the cause of action is contractual in nature.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- private dispute
- contract breach
- dispossession
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33260 of 2026
M/S Azhari Brick Works
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh, Raj Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., J.N. Maurya, Mayuri Mehrotra
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the
following relief:-
A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent
no.4, District Magistrate, Moradabad, to consider and decide the petitioner's
representation dated 16.07.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in
accordance with law, within a time period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction commanding respondents to ensure that the
petitioner is not dispossessed from the brick kiln otherwise than in accordance with
law and that his life and property are duly protected.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the breach of the agreement between the
petitioner and the respondent no.5. Since the dispute is essentially a private
dispute between the petitioner and private respondent no. 5, the present writ
petition is not the proper remedy, as this Court cannot issue any direction
against the private respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
avail appropriate remedy available under the law.
September 9, 2026
Gaurav
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…