MR. R.S. MADIREDDY AND ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 16-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 934 : 2024 INSC 425
Mr. R.S. Madireddy and Anr. etc. 
v. 
Union of India & Ors. etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6473-6476 of 2024)
16 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether respondent No.3(AIL) after having been taken over 
by a private corporate entity could have been subjected to writ 
jurisdiction of the High Court; (ii) Whether the appellants herein 
could have been non-suited on account of the fact that during 
pendency of their writ petitions, the nature of the employer 
changed from a Government entity to a private entity; (iii) Whether 
the delay in disposal of the writ petition could be treated a valid 
ground to sustain the claim of the appellants even against the 
private entity.
Headnotes
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether respondent No.3(AIL) 
after having been taken over by a private corporate entity could 
have been subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court:
Held: In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Government 
of India having transferred its 100% share to a private limited 
company-T, ceased to have any administrative control or deep 
pervasive control over the private entity and hence, the company 
after its disinvestment could not have been treated to be a State 
anymore after having taken over by the private company – Thus, 
unquestionably, the respondent No.3(AIL) after its disinvestment 
ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the meaning 
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India – Once the respondent 
No.3(AIL) ceased to be covered by the definition of State within 
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it could not 
have been subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India – The respondent No.3(AIL), the erstwhile 
Government run airline having been taken over by the private 
company-T, unquestionably, is not performing any public duty 
inasmuch as it has taken over the Government company Air 
India Limited for the purpose of commercial operations, plain and 
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
935
Mr. R.S. Madireddy and Anr. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc.
simple, and thus no writ petition is maintainable against respondent 
No.3(AIL). [Paras 32, 33 and 37]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether the appellants herein 
could have been non-suited on account of the fact that during 
pendency of their writ petitions, the nature of the employer 
changed from a Government entity to a private entity:
Held: The respondent No.3(AIL)-employer was a government entity 
on the date of filing of the writ petitions, which came to be decided 
after a significant delay by which time, the company had been 
disinvested and taken over by a private player – Since, respondent 
No.3 employer had been disinvested and had assumed the character 
of a private entity not performing any public function, the High 
Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction 
to issue a writ to such private entity – The Division Bench of the 
High Court has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to 
seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have 
been non-suited in the case – It is only that the appellants would 
have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy – Thus, 
the question is decided against the appellants. [Para 38]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether the delay in disposal 
of the writ petition could be treated a valid ground to sustain 
the claim of the appellants even against the private entity:
Held: The delay in disposal of the writ petitions could not have 
been a ground to continue with and maintain the writ petitions – 
Because the forum that is the High Court where the writ petitions 
were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent 
which had changed hands in the intervening period – Hence, the 
question is also decided against the appellants. [Para 39]
Case Law Cited
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology 
[2002] 3 SCR 100 : (2002) 5 SCC 111; Andi Mukta Sadguru 
Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak 
Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. [1989] 2 SCR 697 : (1989) 
2 SCC 691; Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [2003] Supp. 4 
SCR 121 : (2003) 10 SCC 733 – relied on.
Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat through Legal Heirs v. Reliance Industries 
Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 10186; Asulal Loya v. Union of 
India and Ors., ILR (2009) I Delhi 450; Tarun Kumar Banerjee v. 
936

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.