Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an individual residing on his property for 70 years, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing Reliance Energy Limited (respondent No.2), a private electricity distribution company, to supply electricity to his premises. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.2, a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, withheld supply at the behest of the adjoining landowners (respondent Nos.3 and 4). The petitioner had a consent decree dated 21st March 1986 from the City Civil Court granting access through respondent No.3's land, but when respondent No.2 attempted to lay electricity cables, respondent No.3 obstructed the work. The petitioner contended that as a licensee under the Act, respondent No.2 had a statutory obligation under Sections 12 and 22 to supply electricity, and that this public duty made it amenable to writ jurisdiction. The contesting respondents argued that a writ could not lie against a private limited company, and that the consent decree did not extend to laying cables. The High Court, after hearing the parties, first addressed the preliminary objection on maintainability. It relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that Article 226 applies to any person or authority performing a public duty, not just the State. The Court observed that the licensee's statutory duty to supply electricity constituted a public duty, and therefore the writ petition was maintainable. The judgment excerpt ends at this point, and the final decision on the mandamus is not recorded in the available text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 226, Constitution of India - The High Court examined whether a writ under Article 226 can be issued against a private limited company that is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Anadi Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani, the Court held that the term 'any person or authority' in Article 226 must be liberally interpreted to include any person or body performing public duty. Since the respondent-licensee has a statutory obligation to supply electricity under Sections 12 and 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it performs a public duty and is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Held that the writ petition is maintainable (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued against a private limited company that is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in view of its public duty to supply electricity.
Final Decision
The High Court rejected the preliminary objection on maintainability, holding that a writ under Article 226 can be issued against any person or authority performing a public duty, and that a licensee under the Electricity Act performs such a duty. The final outcome on the prayer for mandamus is not available in the provided text.
Law Points
- A writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued against any person or authority performing a public duty
- not limited to 'State' under Article 12
- a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act
- 1910 has a statutory obligation to supply electricity
- and thus is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
