While dismissing the plea, the court observed,
“It is not the case of the petitioner that the Mahindra Finance is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, nor it is alleged that there is any violation of any statutory provisions in the present case.”
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus which can compel Mahindra Finance so that it provides a certain customer ID and receives certain due amounts in easy instalments.
The court has raised doubts over the maintainability of writ petitions against private bodies last year. The bench comprised of Justices Alok Singh and Karunesh Singh Pawar dismissed the petition when it found the response of the petitioner unconvincing. The court has relied upon the Supreme Court Case named Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas & Ors, where it had ruled, “private companies, including private banks, would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The Apex Court, in that case, had clarified,
“private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it.”
In accordance with the rulings above, the High Court has not found any reason to entertain the petition against Mahindra Finance.
“we are of the view that no grounds have been made out to issue any mandamus to a purely private body, namely, Mahindra Finance in the facts of the present case … The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.