The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31262 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Amiya Ranjan Sethi …. Petitioner -versus- Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., BBSR and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Mahakud, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:17.07.2025 and Date of Judgment:17.07.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties-Company. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- // 2 // “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records, issue notice to the opp. Parties and on hearing issue writ of mandamus directing more particularly Opp. Party No.3 to release the claim amount in the policy in favour of the petitioner-nominee within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. And pass any other order/orders would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Company first
Decision
of all raised the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition inter alia on the ground that the private Opp. Party being a company constituted under the provisions of Companies Act, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3.1. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) No.21660 of 2022. It is also contended that on the self-same issue, petitioner had moved the Consumer Forum by filing C.D. Case No.409 of 2023 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Khurda. The said dispute when was dismissed for non-prosecution, petitioner instead of reviving the same, has moved the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party-Company regarding moving Consumer Forum in C.D. Case No.409 of 2023, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // petitioner contended that such a claim was filed with regard to the claim which relates to Policy No.15071611. But the present Writ Petition has been filed in respect of Policy No.15071610. Therefore, with regard to benefit accruing from Policy No.15071610, the present petitioner has not moved any other forum, save and except, the present Writ Petition. 4.1. With regard to maintainability, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner though relied on an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.39989 of 2023, but fairly contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2625-2627 of 2025 ((S. Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.), Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that Writ Petition will not lie against a Private Company. View expressed in Para-9 of the judgment reads as follows:- “9. We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // (3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep 11 a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. (8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, 12 p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point. ” 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the decision in the case of S. Shobha as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Opp. Party/Company is not amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. With regard to the stand taken by the Opp. Party-Company Page 4 of 5 // 5 // regarding filing of the Consumer Case, it is the view of this Court that since with regard to the policy in question, no dispute has been filed, it is open for the petitioner to move appropriate forum for consideration of his grievance as made in the present Writ Petition. While not entertaining the Writ Petition on the ground of maintainability, the same is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 17th July, 2025/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jul-2025 11:56:55 Page 5 of 5