IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19291 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 14.10.2011 Veena Kumari and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. S.R. Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners, who have got booked 200 square yards plot with the JTPL Private Limited (respondent No.3), a private developer, have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the acts of respondent No.3, i.e. accepting the advance registration money without having valid license and clearance from the Government; raising the fiscal demand towards the instalments without allotment of any specific plot in the name of the petitioners as well as without entering into the written agreement of sale with them, which amount to pre-launch, which is prohibited as per the established law, with a further direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to take suitable action against CWP No. 19291 of 2011 -2- respondent No.3 for its illegal acts and irregularities. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present writ petition, the primarily grouse of the petitioners is against respondent No.3, which is a private company and not an instrumentality of the State, within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No.3 though is a private company, but is conducting all its operations under the supervision, authorisation and control of the Greater Mohali Development Authority (respondent No.2), which is an instrumentality of the State and has deep and pervasive control over respondent No.3. Therefore, the action of respondent No.3 can be questioned in the writ jurisdiction, if it violates the constitutional rights of the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the dispute raised in the present writ petition is purely of private nature, having no public law element. If respondent No.3 has violated any contractual obligation, the petitioners have ample remedy under the general law. If respondent No.3 has violated the terms and conditions of the license granted to it, the petitioners can approach the authorities under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and the Punjab Apartments and Property Act, 1995, for redressal of their grouse. But in our opinion, no writ petition is maintainable against respondent No.3, who is neither performing any public function nor CWP No. 19291 of 2011 -3- discharging a public or statutory duty (See Binni Ltd. Versus Sadasivan, AIR 2005 SC 3202). The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, completely falls within the arena of private law. Though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide and the writ jurisdiction can be invoked even against a private company or a person, if the court is satisfied that such a private company/person is performing a public function or discharging a public duty. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when the petitioners can redress their grouse before the alternative forums, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 14, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE