The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a transport company seeking recovery of dues from a private entity, imposing an exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner. The Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan expressed strong disapproval regarding the filing of such petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against private companies, noting that such actions waste the Court’s precious time.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court via Writ-C No. 280 of 2026, filed by Union Transport Corporation. The petitioner, a transport company, approached the Court claiming certain dues from Respondent No. 2.
It was noted in the order that Respondent No. 2 is a private company, a fact specifically reflected in the cause title of the petition itself. The Union of India was arrayed as Respondent No. 1, despite having no involvement in the dispute.
Arguments and Observations
During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny that the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution was directed solely against a private company.
The Court observed: “It is also not disputed that respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the claim of the petitioner or respondent no.2.”
Upon the Court expressing its “angst” regarding the maintainability of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench took a serious view of the filing of the petition, observing that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not invocable against private entities for such claims. The Court highlighted that this was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of frivolous litigation that hinders judicial efficiency.
In its order, the Bench stated:
“This Court feels that exemplary cost must be imposed to deter such petitions being filed before this Court. This is not the first case, this Court has seen amply several cases, one after the other where Article 226 of the Constitution is not invocable yet they are filed taking precious time of this Court preventing it from dealing with those cases which actually require consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Decision
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost on the petitioner to deter future misuse of the writ jurisdiction.
The Court ordered: “Under the circumstances, this case is dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner to be paid into the account of High Court Legal Services Committee.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Union Transport Corporation Vs. Union Of India And Another
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 280 of 2026
- Coram: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Arunendra Kumar Shukla, Ram Krishna Dubey
- Counsel for Respondents: A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra
