# Ram Ratan Agnihotri v. Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh & others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1368
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-12-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.65815 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ratan-agnihotri-v-senior-superintendent-central-jail-fatehgarh-others-41806
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Rules-Rule
56
(C)-
Compulsory
retirement-authorities
considering
previous
conduct-adverse
entries-appraisal of work and scrutiny of
service

record-taken
decision
to
compulsory
retire-petitioner
never
challenge those entries-plea regarding
single adverse entry can not be basis to
compulsory
retire-misconceived-no
allegation of mala fide or malice against
authority-decision
taken
in
public
interest-no reason for interference by
writ court-can not act as appellate
authority.
3 All] Ram Ratan Agnihotri V Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh & others
1369
Held: Para 19

Considering the entire service record of
the petitioner and in particular, the
aforesaid adverse entries, it cannot be
said that the competent authority has
acted arbitrarily and there was no
material at all to form an opinion that
the
petitioner
deserved
to
be
compulsorily retired under F.R. Rule
56(c). It is not the case of the petitioner
that
the
above
entries
have
been
recorded against him by the various
authorities on account of any malice or
mala
fide
nor
anyone
has
been
impleaded
eo-nomine.
There
is
no
challenge
by
the
petitioner
to
the
aforesaid entries. This Court will not sit
in appeal over the decision of the
competent authority based on over all
assessment
of
service
record
of
a
Government
servant
for
taking
the
decision of compulsory retirement of
such an officer unless it is arbitrary ex
facie. F.R. 56 as enacted in Uttar Pradesh
empowers the competent authority to
consider the entire service record and
the same having been perused, the
competent authority, in my view, has
rightly held that the petitioner should be
compulsorily retired and I do not find
any reason to interfere with the said
decision.
The
contention
of
the
petitioner, thus, that the impugned order
has been passed without any material
and is arbitrary, is rejected.
Case law discussed:
JT 2001 (3) SC 223, AIR 1954 SC 369, (1996)
4 SCC 504, (1992) 2 SCC 317, AIR 1998 SC
3058, (1996) 5 SCC 331, AIR 2001 S.C. 1109,
AIR 995 SC 111, 2001 (3) SCC 389, (1998) 4
SCC 92

## Text

1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
concerned, even by roster, it would not
apply otherwise it would cross the
maximum limit prescribed by statute,
which is not permissible.

14. Now, coming to the main aspect
of the matter as to whether the post is to be
filled in by promotion or not, the question
as to how the post of Head Clerk can be
filled in, to my mind, ought not to have
impressed on the DIOS when the post is
lying vacant and cannot be filled in
whatever may be reason. The fact remains
that out of four posts, only one was
actually filled in by promotion and one by
direct recruitment. If the logic of the DIOS
is accepted, even then what this Court has
observed would be the correct position for
the reason that a person working on the
post of Assistant Clerk after five years if
promoted he would take the colour of the
source of his recruitment. The fact remains
that out of four posts, only one was
actually filled in by promotion and
therefore, one more post could have been
filled in by promotion. In the absence of
non-availability of anyone to fill in the post
of Head Clerk by promotion, the post of
Assistant Clerk could have been filled in
by promotion of a Class IV employee as
that would not have exceeded the quota
meant for promotion. The statute provides
that first of all the authority concerned has
to ensure that not less than 50% of the post
should be filled in by promotion and
thereafter only, it can take recourse for
direct recruitment.

15. In view of the above discussion,
the decision of DIOS for filling in the post
of Assistant Clerk in question, in the
College, by direct recruitment and not by
promotion
cannot
sustain.
The
appointment of respondent-Rahul Awana
by direct recruitment therefore, has also to
go. The writ petitions are accordingly
allowed. The impugned orders are hereby
quashed. The respondents shall take steps
for filling in the post of Assistant Clerk of
the College in question by promotion in
accordance with law. The steps for filling
in the post in question by promotion, as
directed above, shall be completed by the
authority concerned within two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order before him.

16. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.65815 of 2008

Ram Ratan Agnihotri

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Senior
Superintendent,
Central
Jail,
Fatehgarh & others
 ...Repondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Kirti Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Fundamental
Rules-Rule
56
(C)-
Compulsory
retirement-authorities
considering
previous
conduct-adverse
entries-appraisal of work and scrutiny of
service

record-taken
decision
to
compulsory
retire-petitioner
never
challenge those entries-plea regarding
single adverse entry can not be basis to
compulsory
retire-misconceived-no
allegation of mala fide or malice against
authority-decision
taken
in
public
interest-no reason for interference by
writ court-can not act as appellate
authority.
3 All] Ram Ratan Agnihotri V Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh & others
1369
Held: Para 19

Considering the entire service record of
the petitioner and in particular, the
aforesaid adverse entries, it cannot be
said that the competent authority has
acted arbitrarily and there was no
material at all to form an opinion that
the
petitioner
deserved
to
be
compulsorily retired under F.R. Rule
56(c). It is not the case of the petitioner
that
the
above
entries
have
been
recorded against him by the various
authorities on account of any malice or
mala
fide
nor
anyone
has
been
impleaded
eo-nomine.
There
is
no
challenge
by
the
petitioner
to
the
aforesaid entries. This Court will not sit
in appeal over the decision of the
competent authority based on over all
assessment
of
service
record
of
a
Government
servant
for
taking
the
decision of compulsory retirement of
such an officer unless it is arbitrary ex
facie. F.R. 56 as enacted in Uttar Pradesh
empowers the competent authority to
consider the entire service record and
the same having been perused, the
competent authority, in my view, has
rightly held that the petitioner should be
compulsorily retired and I do not find
any reason to interfere with the said
decision.
The
contention
of
the
petitioner, thus, that the impugned order
has been passed without any material
and is arbitrary, is rejected.
Case law discussed:
JT 2001 (3) SC 223, AIR 1954 SC 369, (1996)
4 SCC 504, (1992) 2 SCC 317, AIR 1998 SC
3058, (1996) 5 SCC 331, AIR 2001 S.C. 1109,
AIR 995 SC 111, 2001 (3) SCC 389, (1998) 4
SCC 92

(Delivered by Hon'ble. Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The order of compulsory
retirement is under challenge passed
under Fundamental Rule 56(c). It appears
that earlier petitioner came up to this
court by means of writ petition no. 34414
of 1999, assailing the aforesaid order of
compulsory
retirement,
which
was
disposed of on 7.5.2008. This court
observed
that
order
of
compulsory
retirement was passed as a punishment,
hence it is harsh. The matter was
remanded
for reconsideration.
It
is
pursuant to this observation and direction,
the impugned order has been passed by
Senior
Superintendent,
Central
Jail,
Fatehgarh on 14/15.10.2008 affirming the
order of compulsory retirement of the
petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of sub para 6 only for
one year his Annual Confidential Report
was found bad and on that basis he could
not have been held a dead wood. Reliance
is placed on State of Gujrat Vs.
Umedbhai M. Patel, JT 2001 (3) SC
223.

4. The submission is thoroughly
misconceived. Aforesaid order shows that
following punishments were imposed
upon
the
petitioner
pursuant
to
disciplinary proceedings held at different
times.

^^1- ftyk dkjkxkj] dkuiqj esa jkf=xLr ds
le; lhf<+;ksa ij cSBdj Ma?krs gq, ik;s tkus ij
vkns'k fnukad 10-06-93 }kjk n.M Lo:i vkxkeh
,d o"kZ dh osruo`f) jksds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr
fd;k] ftldk izHkko Hkfo"; dh osruo`f);ks ij ugha
iM+sxkA

2- ofj"B v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjkxkj] Qrsgx<+
ds vkns'k fnukad 06-07-96 }kjk canh dh vkRegR;k
ds izdj.k esa orZeku osrudze esa rhu Lrj uhps ,d
o"kZ ds fy, mrkjk x;k ftldk izHkko Hkfo"; dh
osruo`f);ksa ij ugha iM+sxkA mDr n.M dks mi
egkfuns'kd dkjkxkj dkuiqj ifj{ks= dkuiqj }kjk
vihy esa fujLr dj fn;k x;k gSA
1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

3- ofj"B v{kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjkxkj] Qrsgx<+
ds vkns'k fnukad 13-04-91 }kjk fopkjk/khu canh
NksVsyky ds iyk;u esa nks"kh ik;s tkus ij n.M
Lo:i rhu o"kksZa dh osruo`f);ka jksdh x;hA ftldk
izHkko Hkfo"; dh osruo`f);ksa ij ugha iM+sxkA blds
vfrfjDr fnukad 07-04-94 dks iz/kku canhj{kd in
gsrq pquko esa lfEefyr gq, ftlesa v;ksX; ik;s x;sA

4- ofj"B v/kh{k] dsUnzh; dkjkxkj] Qrsgx<+ ds
vkns'k fnukad 20-06-87 ds }kjk tsy ykbZu es
vukf/kd`r :i ls tkuoj ikyus ds laca/k esa ,d
osruo`f) jksdh x;h ftldk izHkko Hkkoh osruo`f);ksa
ij ugha iM+sxkA

5- lsok esa ,d y?kqn.M psrkouh gS ftl ij
;kph ds gLrk{kj gS blds 03 fnu dk vfrfjDr
fM~y rFkk lkIrkfgr ijsM esa cSjd xUnh ik;s tkus ij
dBksj psrkouh nh x;h rFkk Hk.Mkjs ds fujh{k.k esa
Hk.Mkjk xUnk ik;s tkus ij ;kph dks pfj= iaftdk
ds ek/;e ls psrkouh nh x;h ,oa vnZyh fM;wVh esa
vuqifLFkr ik;s tkus ij pfj= iaftdk ds ek/;e ls
psrkouh nh x;hA

6- fiNys 10 o"kksZa dh xksiuh; izfof"V;ksa esa ikap
o"kZ dh xksiuh; izfof"V;ka vPNh ik;h x;h rFkk 02
o"kZ dh mRre] ,d o"kZ dh [kjkc ,oa ,d o"kZ dh
izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij nh x;h gSA**

5. Besides above, learned counsel
for the petitioner admits that compulsory
retirement is not a punishment under
disciplinary rules but is an order passed in
exercise of power under Fundamental
Rule 56(c).

6. Compulsory retirement is a facet
of "doctrine of pleasure" embodied in
Article 310 of the Constitution. The rule
holds balance between the rights of
individual Government servant and the
interest of the public. It is intended to
enable the employer to energise its
machinery and make it more efficient by
compulsorily retiring those who in its
opinion should not be there in public
interest. The object is to weed out the
dead wood in order to maintain high
standard of efficiency and honesty. It does
not cast any stigma and cannot be
constituted
as
a
punishment
to
a
Government servant when exercised in
public interest under F.R. 56.

7. In Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P.
and another, AIR 1954 SC 369 it was
held that an officer who has compulsory
retired does not lose any part of the
benefit that he has earned and is entitled
for pension and other retiral benefits in
accordance with Rules. There is no
deprivation of the accrued benefits.
Though from the point of view of the
officer/employee concerned, he may think
to have been punished for not being
allowed to serve till he attains the age of
superannuation
prescribed
under
the
Rules, but there is distinction between the
loss of benefits already earned and loss of
prospects to earn something more. It was
held that since compulsory retirement
under F.R. 56(c) is not a punishment
when resorted to in public interest, Article
311 of the Constitution of India has no
application.

8. The whole purpose of the
provision made for compulsory retirement
is to weed out the worthless without
resorting to bona fide extreme process
covered under Article 311 of the
Constitution. After all the administration
to be efficient has to be manned by active
and competent prone workers and should
not be manned by drones do nothing,
incompetent and unworthies. Lack of
efficiency by itself does not amount to a
misconduct
and,
therefore,
such
incumbent may not be delinquent needs to
be punished but may prove to be a burden
on the administration, if by insensitive,
insouciant,
unintelligent
or
dubious
conduct impede the floor or promote
3 All] Ram Ratan Agnihotri V Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh & others
1371
stagnation. In a developing country where
speed, probity, sensitive, enthusiastic,
creativity and non-brevity process are
immediately required, callous cadres and
paperlogged are the bees setting sin of the
administration. Sometimes, reputation or
otherwise the information available to the
superior officers reflects on the integrity
of the employee but there may not be
sufficient evidence available to initiate
punitive
action,
but
simultaneously
conduct and reputation of such person is
menace for his continuance in public
service is injurious to public interest. In
all such cases order of compulsory
retirement
may
be
passed
by
the
competent authority.

9. In Allahabad Bank Officers'
Association & another Vs. Allahabad
Bank and others (1996) 4 SCC 504, the
Apex Court observed as under:-

" The power to compulsorily retire a
government servant is one of the facets of
the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in
Article 310 of the Constitution. The object
of compulsory retirement is to weed out
the dead wood in order to maintain
efficiency and initiative in service and
also to dispense with the services of those
whose integrity is doubtful so as to
preserve purity in the administration."
(para-5)

10. In S. Ramchandra Raju
(supra) the Apex Court held as under:

" It is thus settled law that though the
order of compulsory retirement is not a
punishment and the government employee
is entitled to draw all retiral benefits
including pension, the government must
exercise its power only in the public
interest to effectuate the efficiency of the
service. The dead wood need to be
removed to augment efficiency. Integrity
in public service need to be maintained.
The exercise of power of compulsory
retirement must not be a haunt on public
servant but must act as a check and
reasonable measure to ensure efficiency
of service and free from corruption and
incompetence. The officer would live by
reputation built around him. In an
appropriate case, there may not be
sufficient evidence to take punitive
disciplinary action of removal from
service. But his conduct and reputation is
such that his continuance in service would
be a menace in public service and
injurious to public interest."

11. In Posts and Telegraphs Board
Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317,
the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the
scope of judicial review as under:-

"An order of compulsory retirement
is not an order of punishment. F.R. 56(j)
authorizes the government to review the
working of its employee at the end of the
point of their service referred to therein
and to require the servant to retire from
service, if in its opinion, public interest
calls for such an order. Whether the
conduct of the employee is such as to
justify such a conclusion is primarily for
the departmental authorities to decide.
The nature of delinquency and whether it
is of such a degree as to require the
compulsory retirement of the employee
are primarily for the government to
decide upon. The Courts will not interfere
with the exercise of this power, if arrived
at bona fide and on the basis of material
available on the record. "(para 5)
(emphasis added)
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

12. In M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of
India and others, AIR 1998 SC 3058,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

" judicial scrutiny of any order
imposing
premature
compulsory
retirement is permissible if the order is
either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is
based on no evidence. The observation
that principles of natural justice have no
place in the context of compulsory
retirement does not mean that if the
version of the delinquent officer is
necessary to reach the correct conclusion,
the same can be obviated on the
assumption that other materials alone
need be looked into." (para 11)

13. In State of Orissa and others
Vs. Ram Chandra Das (1996) 5 SCC
331, the Apex Court held:

" ........................It is needless to
reiterate that the settled position is that
the government is empowered and would
be entitled to compulsorily retire a
government servant in public interest with
a
view
to
improve
efficiency
of
administration or to weed out the people
of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but
sufficient evidence was not available to
take disciplinary action in accordance
with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of
discipline in the service." ( para 3)

14. Thus, compulsory retirement of
an employee is actually a prerogative of
the Government but it is also true that it
should be based on material and on the
satisfaction of the authority concerned
based on record that the Government
servant should not be allowed to continue
in public interest and be made to retire.

15. It would be useful to refer
certain
principles
in
respect
to
compulsory retirement, culled out by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Baikunth Nath
Das (supra) which have been reiterated in
State of Gujarat Vs. Umed Bhai M.
Patel AIR 2001 S.C. 1109 held.

"(i) When the services of a public
servant are no longer useful to the
general administration, the officer can be
compulsorily retired for the sake of public
interest.

(ii)
Ordinarily,
the
order
of
compulsory retirement is not to be treated
as a punishment coming under Article 311
of the Constitution.

(iii) For better administration, it is
necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the
order of compulsory retirement can be
passed after having due regard to the
entire service record of the officer.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the
confidential record shall be taken note of
and be given due weightage in passing
such order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in
the confidential record can also be taken
into consideration.

(vi)
The
order
of
compulsory
retirement shall not be passed as a short
cut to avoid departmental enquiry when
such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer is given a
promotion despite adverse entries made
in the confidential record, that is a fact in
favour of the officer.
3 All] Ram Ratan Agnihotri V Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh & others
1373

Compulsory retirement shall not be
imposed as a punitive measure."

16. In S. Ram Chandra Raju Vs.
State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111 the
Court held in para 9 of the judgment that
the dead wood needs to be removed to
augment efficiency. Integrity of public
servants needs to be maintained. The
exercise
of
power
of
compulsory
retirement must not be a haunt on public
servant but must act as a check and
reasonable measure to ensure efficiency
of service and free from corruption and
incompetence. The officer would live by
reputation built around him. In an
appropriate case, there may not be
sufficient evidence to take punitive
disciplinary action of removal from
service. But his conduct and reputation is
such that his continuance in service would
be a menace in public service and
injurious to public interest. This has been
followed in Bishwanath Prasad Singh
Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2
SCC 305 wherein with respect to the
object, purpose and precaution which are
to be taken while writing confidential
report, the Court emphasized the need of
fairness, justness and objectivity in
awarding the entries.

17. A similar question came up
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
U.P. and another Vs. Lalsa Ram, 2001 (3)
SCC 389 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered Fundamental Rule 56, as
applicable in U.P. Lalsa Ram was
working as Deputy Collector. At the time
when he was compulsorily retired in the
year 1998 the screening committee
considered adverse entries of 1967-68,
1981-82, 1982-83 and 1991-92 as well as
censure dated 18.1.86. Although there
was no adverse entry in the preceding five
years
yet
considering
the
constant
deterioration in the performance of Shri
Lalsa Ram, he was recommended for
compulsory retirement. The writ petition
filed by Lalsa Ram challenging the
aforesaid order of compulsory retirement
was allowed on the ground that there
being no adverse entry in preceding five
years and the adverse entries from 1967 to
1982 being old and stale, only on the
basis of one adverse entry of the year
1991-92 it was not justified to retire him
compulsorily. The Hon'ble Apex Court
allowing
the
appeal
of
the
State
Government
considering
Fundamental
Rule 56 held as under:

"The Uttar Pradesh Fundamental
Rules governing the service conditions of
the respondent herein, in particular, Rule
56(c) & Explanation 2(a), (b) specifically
provide that nothing in the Rules should
be
construed
to
exclude
from
consideration any entry relating to any
efficiency bar or he was promoted to any
post in an officiating or a substantive
capacity or on an ad hoc basis. The
important words used are : nothing herein
contained shall be construed to exclude
from consideration: the exclusion thus is
prohibited in terms of the rule. The
authority concerned, by reason wherefor
has thus a liberty to consider even entries
relating
to
the
period
before
the
governmetn servant was allowed to cross
any efficiency bar or before he was
promoted. It is true that one of the
guiding principles as enunciated above in
Baikuntha Nath case with regard to
performance during the later years ought
to be attached more importance but that
does not exclude the consideration of the
entire record of service."

(para 11) (emphasis added.)
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

18. Again in para 13 of the
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that Fundamental Rule 56 confers the
right absolute to retire an employee on
happening of certain event namely, the
employee attaining 50 years of age. The
only guiding factor is the public interest
to retire an employee. It also held that the
right being absolute, in the event it is not
contrary to the condition, as embodied in
Fundamental Rule 56, the question of
violation of any legal right of an
employee would not arise. It further held
where the material is sufficient and
conclusion of the authority would have
been justified, it cannot be a matter of
judicial review, since primarily it is for
the departmental authority to decide. The
delinquency of the entry and whether it is
of such a degree as to reflect on the
efficiency of the employees has to be
decided by the authorities and the Courts
have no authority or jurisdiction to
interfere with such exercise of power, if
arrived at bona fide on the basis of the
material
on
record.
Usurpation
of
authority is not only unwarranted but
contrary
to
all
norms
of
service
jurisprudence. Showing its agreement
with the law laid down in State of
Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4
SCC 92, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalsa
Ram (supra) further held as follows :

"...................The
appointing
authority upon consideration of the entire
service record as required under the
Rules and having formed its opinion that
the
compulsory
retirement
of
the
respondent being in public interest issued
the order and in the wake of the
aforesaid, question of any interference of
this Court does not and cannot arise.
Interference in these matter by the courts
in exercise of their jurisdiction under the
constitutional mandate is very restricted
and the courts shall have to tread on the
issue with utmost care and caution by
reason
of
very
limited
scope
of
interference. The High Court has, in fact,
ignored this aspect of the matter and
proceeded solely on the basis of the
factum of there being no adverse entry in
the recent past. Needless to state that
adverse entries did not stand extinguished
by mere lapse of time but they continued
to be on record and it is for the employer
to act and rely thereon in the event of
there being a rule permitting an order of
compulsory retirement.
(para 16) (emphasis added.) "

19. Considering the entire service
record of the petitioner and in particular,
the aforesaid adverse entries, it cannot be
said that the competent authority has
acted arbitrarily and there was no material
at all to form an opinion that the petitioner
deserved to be compulsorily retired under
F.R. Rule 56(c). It is not the case of the
petitioner that the above entries have been
recorded against him by the various
authorities on account of any malice or
mala fide nor anyone has been impleaded
eo-nomine. There is no challenge by the
petitioner to the aforesaid entries. This
Court will not sit in appeal over the
decision of the competent authority based
on over all assessment of service record
of a Government servant for taking the
decision of compulsory retirement of such
an officer unless it is arbitrary ex facie.
F.R. 56 as enacted in Uttar Pradesh
empowers the competent authority to
consider the entire service record and the
same having been perused, the competent
authority, in my view, has rightly held
that the petitioner should be compulsorily
retired and I do not find any reason to
interfere with the said decision. The
3 All] Dharmendra Kumar Yadav V. Manager, Commercial Auto Sales (Private) Limited 1375
contention of the petitioner, thus, that the
impugned order has been passed without
any material and is arbitrary, is rejected.

20. The writ petition lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE S.S. TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66283 of 2010

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Manager, Commercial Auto Sales
(Private) Limited
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A. Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondent:

........................

Constitution
of
India,
Art
226Maintainability-Writ
Petition
against
Private body-not within meaning of
State-nor performing Statutory dutyheld-petition against Commercial Auto
Sales (Pvt.)-not maintainable.

Held: Para 8 and 12

It is not the case of the petitioner that
the Commercial Auto Sales Pvt Ltd. 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.
No statutory duty on the respondents
have been pointed out which have been
violated by it.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we
are of the view that no grounds have
been made out to issue any mandamus
to a purely private body namely; i.e.
Commercial Auto Sales Pvt Ltd. in the
facts of the present case. We, however,
observe that it is open for the petitioner
to take such civil or criminal action
against the private body which may be
permissible under law.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2007 SC 1349; AIR 1977 Alld, 539; AIR
1969, SC 1306; (2003) 10 SCC 733.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

By this petition, petitioner has prayed
for following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent not to take forcibly possession
of Truck no. UP-70-AT-7959 through their
re-possession agents.

(ii) issue any other suitable writ, order
or directionwhich this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the cost of the writ
petition in the favour of the petitioner."

2. The petitioner has taken a loan of
Rs. 10 lacs in the month of November,
2007 from the respondent Commercial
Auto Sales (Pvt) Ltd for purchase of a
Truck which was to be repaid in 44
instalments upto 2011. Petitioner's case is
that certain default was committed in
depositing the loan, hence the truck which
was financed by the respondent was
repossessed
by
the
agents
of
the
respondent. Petitioner's case is that a letter