# Corporation Workers' Union v. T.N - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 824 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-09-06 - **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/corporation-workers-union-v-t-n-40012 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226- Recovery Proceeding- against the Director of company- Electric dues Rs.95,99,446/- plea about corporate body- avoiding personal liability- held- not available- court declined to interfere. Held - Para 15 Hence we are of the opinion that so far as electricity dues are concerned this Court will pierce the veil of corporate personality and shall not give shelter to the businessmen who seek protection under the doctrine of corporate personality. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 liquor shop near his shop. The apex court specified three categories of persons, visà-vis, locus standi (i) a person aggrieved (ii) a stranger and (iii) a busybody or a meddlesome interloper. It was held that any one belonging to third category is easily distinguishable and such person interferes in the things which do not concern him as he masquerades to be a crusader of justice. Petition by such person has to be rejected at the very threshold. The instant case squarely falls in the third category. Not a single entrepreneur from the industrial estate has come forward to complain about the project, in question. Supreme Court, has very clearly held in T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Workers' Union Vs. T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others- (2001) 4 SCC-469, Vinay Kumar V. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC-734 Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar Dass- (2001) 9SCC-297 that a person shall have no locus standi to file writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his Fundamental Rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto or instituted in the public interest. In Nilangekar Patil (supra), the apex court stressed the necessity to cleanse public life. It equated the pollution in values and standards as equally grave as pollution in the environment. Thus, Nilangekar Patil (supra) too is of no assistance to the petitioners. 13. We also find ourselves unable to accept the argument of Sri Singh, learned Senior Advocate that the present is a case of 'malace of law'. Sri Singh has sought to distinguish between 'malice of fact' and malice of law'. In this behalf, paragraph 28 of the writ petition is relevant wherein it has been alleged by the petitioners that the Minister was won over and, therefore, the Minister with a mala fide intention and for extraneous consideration favoured the respondent no. 7 with the impugned letter dated 27.8.2000. Use of words' won over' 'mala fide intention and ' extraneous consideration' can only mean 'malice in fact' and not 'malice in law'. It is precisely because of this reason that Mr. Lalji Tandon has been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. Had it been a case of 'malice in law', there was absolutely no need to implead Mr. Tandon in the instant case. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, noted as aforesaid, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED:ALLAHABAD 6.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J. THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Writ Tax No. 2447/2002 Manoharlal ...Petitioner Versus Bhoora ...Respondent http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Manoharlal V. Bhoora 825 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.R. Jaisawal Counsel for the Respondent: S.C. Constitution of India- Article 226- Release of vehicle- Demand notice for Rs.2,16,971/- undertaking given for deposit of entire amount within two weeks as per direction of the Court- if the entire amount is deposited to the satisfaction of the concerned authority as per direction- the vehicle in question be released during pendency of the writ petition. Held- Para 3 The writ petitioner undertakes to pay demanded dues of Rs.2,16,971, (Two Lac Sixteen thousand Nine hundred Seventy one) in cash and balance Rs.1,00000/- (one lac) by way of Bank guarantee and further Rs.1,00000/- (one Lac) by any other security to the satisfaction of respondent no. 3. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.) 1. Sri M.R. Jaisawal Advocate appears for writ petitioner. Sri S.P. Kesarwani learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondents. Admit. 2. Counter affidavit to be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List the mater after four weeks. 3. The writ petitioner undertakes to pay demanded dues of Rs.2,16,971, (Two Lac Sixteen thousand Nine hundred Seventy one) in cash and balance Rs.1,00000/- (One Lac) by way of Bank guarantee and further Rs.1,00000/ (one Lac) by any other security to the satisfaction of respondent no. 3 in respect of each vehicle within two weeks. In the event of compliance of such direction there shall be stay of the demand notice dated 6.8.2002 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) and the vehicles in question shall be released. In default of compliance of the directions within two weeks as stated, the interim stay shall stand automatically vacated. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37833 of 2002 Sanjay Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Fatehpur and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri H.N. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Recovery Proceeding- against the Director of company- Electric dues Rs.95,99,446/- plea about corporate body- avoiding personal liability- held- not available- court declined to interfere. Held - Para 15 Hence we are of the opinion that so far as electricity dues are concerned this Court will pierce the veil of corporate personality and shall not give shelter to the businessmen who seek protection under the doctrine of corporate personality.