Global Private Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory Sanjay Tripathi v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment And Climate Change Dept. And Or

private limited company as asserted by Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, its counsel. The agreement is on record. We have gone through the said agreement. It is dated 18.04.2007. It pertains to rendering effluent treatment facility to the petitioner-company and all other leather industries operating in the precincts of Banthar Industrial Park. Having gone through the said agreement, we do not find the government or any of its instrumentalities 2 WRIC No. 8879 of 2025 to be a party to it. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the dispute is between the petitioner-private limited company and opposite party no.2 which is also a private limited company and is referable to the agreement dated 18.04.2007. It is a commercial/ contractual dispute between the parties, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to certain documents annexed opposite party no.2 itself in the counter affidavit which contains certain directions by the State authorities to its officials relating to reconstitution of Banthar Industrial Pollution Control Company Board. Based on these documents, it was contended that the administration and management is that of the government agencies. He specifically referred to point 2.0 of a document at page no.76, according to which, opposite party no.2 was to be reconstituted so as to incorporate such representatives of Central, State Government and Research/ Technical Institute/ Autonomous Institution and experts as are decided by the competent authority in National Mission for Clean Ganga. Representation of State Government/ district administration/ local bodies and N.M.C.G. should be part of the Board of Directors of BIPCC. BIPCC was required to hold its meeting and do the necessary inclusion and restructuring of the BIPCC. However, on being asked to demonstrate that such reconstitution actually took place, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such pleading or document. Opposite party no.2 is a private limited company and there is nothing on record to suggest that it has been converted into a government company under the Companies Act, 2013 assuming this was permissible. The Articles & Memorandum of Association of the State Government are on record, according to which, there are no government officials in its Board. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 says that no such reconstitution has taken place as is being suggested by the petitioner or as was suggested by the government. Opposite party no.2 continues to be a private limited company. Moreover, we find that the agreement in question out of which this dispute has arisen was entered on 18.04.2007 whereas the documents referred by the petitioner's counsel as having been annexed with the counter affidavit are of 2020 and onwards. The Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association do not show any capital inflow by 3 WRIC No. 8879 of 2025 the State Government or its instrumentalities into the opposite party no.2- company. As regards the documents relied by the petitioner which have been referred hereinabove, it appears that they have not fructified into reconstitution of the Board. As of now, there appears to be no role of State Government or its instrumentalities in management or capital contribution of opposite party no.2-company as has also been asserted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The dispute herein is between the petitioner-private limited company and opposite party no.2-private limited company. Merely because the work of upgradation of Common Effluent Treatment Plant which caters to all the industries in the Banthar Industrial cluster is being performed by opposite party no.2 substantially or partially in pursuance to some scheme of the government by itself is immaterial considering the nature of the dispute herein which is a money dispute between the petitioner and opposite party no.2. No relief has been sought against the U.P. Pollution Control Board in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 'Ajay Hasia & Ors. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.' and decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.10899 of 2013 'Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors', however, in the facts of this case, none of the decisions are applicable. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the other hand has relied upon the decisions reported in (2015) 4 SCC 671 'K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors'; (2019) 16 SCC 303 'Ramakrisha Mission & Anr. vs. Kago Kunya & Ors.'; (2025) SCC Online SC 177 'S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.'; (1999) 4 SCC 450 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dolly Das' and (2021) SCC Online All 724 'Uttam Chand Rawat vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' to substantiate his preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition.

4. Writ petition in such a matter against a private company is not maintainable. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be prescribed in law. November 21, 2025 Shanu/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

private limited company as asserted by Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, its counsel. The agreement is on record. We have gone through the said agreement. It is dated 18.04.2007. It pertains to rendering effluent treatment facility to the petitioner-company and all other leather industries operating in the precincts of Banthar Industrial Park. Having gone through the said agreement, we do not find the government or any of its instrumentalities 2 WRIC No. 8879 of 2025 to be a party to it. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the dispute is between the petitioner-private limited company and opposite party no.2 which is also a private limited company and is referable to the agreement dated 18.04.2007. It is a commercial/ contractual dispute between the parties, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to certain documents annexed opposite party no.2 itself in the counter affidavit which contains certain directions by the State authorities to its officials relating to reconstitution of Banthar Industrial Pollution Control Company Board. Based on these documents, it was contended that the administration and management is that of the government agencies. He specifically referred to point 2.0 of a document at page no.76, according to which, opposite party no.2 was to be reconstituted so as to incorporate such representatives of Central, State Government and Research/ Technical Institute/ Autonomous Institution and experts as are decided by the competent authority in National Mission for Clean Ganga. Representation of State Government/ district administration/ local bodies and N.M.C.G. should be part of the Board of Directors of BIPCC. BIPCC was required to hold its meeting and do the necessary inclusion and restructuring of the BIPCC. However, on being asked to demonstrate that such reconstitution actually took place, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such pleading or document. Opposite party no.2 is a private limited company and there is nothing on record to suggest that it has been converted into a government company under the Companies Act, 2013 assuming this was permissible. The Articles & Memorandum of Association of the State Government are on record, according to which, there are no government officials in its Board. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 says that no such reconstitution has taken place as is being suggested by the petitioner or as was suggested by the government. Opposite party no.2 continues to be a private limited company. Moreover, we find that the agreement in question out of which this dispute has arisen was entered on 18.04.2007 whereas the documents referred by the petitioner's counsel as having been annexed with the counter affidavit are of 2020 and onwards. The Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association do not show any capital inflow by 3 WRIC No. 8879 of 2025 the State Government or its instrumentalities into the opposite party no.2- company. As regards the documents relied by the petitioner which have been referred hereinabove, it appears that they have not fructified into reconstitution of the Board. As of now, there appears to be no role of State Government or its instrumentalities in management or capital contribution of opposite party no.2-company as has also been asserted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The dispute herein is between the petitioner-private limited company and opposite party no.2-private limited company. Merely because the work of upgradation of Common Effluent Treatment Plant which caters to all the industries in the Banthar Industrial cluster is being performed by opposite party no.2 substantially or partially in pursuance to some scheme of the government by itself is immaterial considering the nature of the dispute herein which is a money dispute between the petitioner and opposite party no.2. No relief has been sought against the U.P. Pollution Control Board in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 'Ajay Hasia & Ors. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.' and decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.10899 of 2013 'Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors', however, in the facts of this case, none of the decisions are applicable. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the other hand has relied upon the decisions reported in (2015) 4 SCC 671 'K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors'; (2019) 16 SCC 303 'Ramakrisha Mission & Anr. vs. Kago Kunya & Ors.'; (2025) SCC Online SC 177 'S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.'; (1999) 4 SCC 450 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dolly Das' and (2021) SCC Online All 724 'Uttam Chand Rawat vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' to substantiate his preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition.

4. Writ petition in such a matter against a private company is not maintainable. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be prescribed in law. November 21, 2025 Shanu/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench