Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2746/2011 of JOGENDER SINGH and OTHERS Vs GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY and ORS on 29 December 2011
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2746 of 2011 Jogender Singh and another …Petitioners Versus General Manager Northern Railway Baroda New Delhi and others …Respondents Present : Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht, Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition (M/S) No. 2746 of 2011
Jogender Singh and another
…Petitioners
Versus
General Manager Northern Railway Baroda New Delhi and others …Respondents Present :Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.S.Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in Court today is taken on record.
3. The petitioners are the members of a trade union known as “Northern Railway Men’s Union”. They are aggrieved by a letter/order dated 14.12.2011 by which the election of the Union are to be scheduled on a particular dated. The contention of the petitioners is that this election is not being done in accordance with procedure. However on a pointed question as to the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply to this Court. Admittedly, the writ petition has been filed against an office bearer of a trade union, which is neither State nor any instrumentality of the State, as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor an “Authority” so that the writ petition could be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be filed against the State or its instrumentality.
4. Since this is not the case here and a writ petition against a private body is not maintainable, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
5. No order as to costs.
Kuldeep
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
29.12.2011