i¥ 2^- llt!': 1 W -& iBI IB THE HIGH COURT OF iJUDIGATURE AT BIIASPUR, CBHATTISGlftRH \ WP Bo.^gC'/OS' 2001 PETITIQBBft^ .••^r: ^^ r^y-" Nagendra Singti Verma Agad about 28 years S/o Shri R.S. verina Ganga nager , ..' Mangla Rciad, BIIASPUR [8HATTIISGARH] ^'" ^^ VERSUS RESPOHDENTS lc^ l.M/s Sunita Finlease Ltd Choubey Colony; :; Opposita Rajkumaj; Collage G E Road RKIPUR f . [CHHATtiISGARH!] : 2-Bnar Inclystria^ Enterprises -ILa.miteci i • :. -Narbheram House, j.^. :: Post Box^No.::j55;j.:.t^.!-^ ' ^ Main Road, Ba;8;fcaBl-i^ 1: : i ! JAMSHEDPUR ^m^S.SQl^. • •;' S.Gaffar ftli^'j S/o Not Knowni R/o YadunanGlaa:;1N^g;arf BILftSPUK : , : :^ '^ .^ i'v:f:\i 4.The SuperinfendantJ o£ Folice\,. • RftIg0B»|--''^ , ^iretT>^i:.BET!lTICa.l;;t)'ffi^Ri,jARII:ei^.:'226/2ft^,:S^^ •COHSTITUTIOK;; ?IlilBIA ' ^: • • :: •• ' •' 'f^^W' •:^-: .': 'l J: VK 1 1" sf:^''^^'''sf^':^e^g^^:!lt!^WIIilHlf XI-HC-22 OT^[»;[ I f^'tai'SiTS?) 1 ^I^I'^ ^t^ '3~5? ^ll<<ICl<i, S'rtl<ail6, islfll^y WffTOw.p. 820/2001WI 2W sn^s ??aiw ?rfTa ^iTqfeqT^ •tm'cfl-^ fscft •(feKT( '?? srf^cR Siltsil 24.8.2001 s Mr.Sharmila singhai Eor the petitioner. Dr.N.K,Shukla,learnep Dy.AG for the respondent no.4 On 23.5.2001,Humdust is yet to be admitted. The service was allowed. P.F. and aopies were ordered wit-hin three days. The petition matter relates to certain transaction for hire purchiise of the vehicle. Obviously grj.evance of thewrit peti^ioner is as regards certain breaches coinmitted by the frarties. Claarly the petitioner can seek remedy under diff •rsnt provisions of law. Accord- ingly action has been initt.ated within the purview of section 138 o£ Negotiable tnstcumsnt Act . In fact.the matter has already been sx^mined by the Consumer Porum also. Be that as ife may, Dt.Shukla learned Deputy Advoaate General submits that the tif'ansaction is purely of private nature. Respondent no.l. ±4 M/s Sualta Finlease Ltd. Res- pondent no.2 is Enar Indus^-rial Enterprises Ltd. .respondent no.3 is one indivldual per^on Gaffar Ali . Respondent no.4 is Superintendent of Polite, Raiptir. The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Coastitutlon of India . Thls means that petitioner is seeking a remedy by asking this C^urt to invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article ...2 226 of the Constitution of India ['q^Sila^ STRTiqff f?:TR7SD^T 3mRi"gT^T _f~lQ-ppT T^r^ i- ..2.. 3^ On the face of it none ofl the respondents can be sald to be "State" within the ^pifeiN iw?ff tf-fs^ •(tegrc ^TsiPgtTsn^ raeaning of Article .12 of the Constitution of India. Tliough Ms.Sharmila singhal ,learne<3 counsel for the pBtition4r has stEenuQUsly urged befare me that despite complaint lodged wiUl the Police,respon- 8eat no.4 has failed to take any actioa.it appears to me that the fact that S.P. ftas fail^ed to take action,will not give the writ petitioner under Artiale 226 ofltize IJoon carefUl perusali patltioa and after heari^g {E •fcitioner 988 as well a.\ no hesitatlon to say tKafl entertaining this petiti^n urrier Article 226 of the| oflthe averments of this writ LeaiEned Gounsel for the writ ^ Dr.Shulclalearned Dy.AG, I have fc no case has been made-out for_._ in exercise of Jtirisdiction Constitution of India. Accordlngly this p It is open to the petitioner is at libertyi before the competent and| right; to come before thls Court Constitution of India. stition is rejected. writ petitioner and in fg/v^i to initlate any legal proceedings appropriate authorlty. / Sd/- Chief Justice •>»t. y