Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, India Awake for Transparency, a non-governmental organization, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Union of India (first respondent) to forthwith act on information furnished by the petitioner on 14.03.2017, 30.01.2020, and 09.11.2020 and direct investigation of the fifth respondent, M/s. Hasham Investment and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. The petition was the third in succession filed by the same petitioner against different authorities regarding the acquisition of shares and amalgamation of a company. The private respondents, including Azim H. Premji and others, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The court noted that the petitioner had no personal cause of action and that an alternative remedy existed under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows members or other persons to apply to the Tribunal for investigation. The court also observed that filing successive petitions on the same subject matter amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, upholding the preliminary objection.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Article 226 of Constitution of India - A third party seeking direction to investigate a company under Section 212 of Companies Act, 2013 must have a personal cause of action or legal right; mere public interest is insufficient when alternative remedy exists under Section 213 of the Act. Held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no personal cause of action and could have approached the Tribunal under Section 213. (Paras 1-5) B) Company Law - Investigation - Alternative Remedy - Sections 212, 213 of Companies Act, 2013 - Section 212 empowers the Central Government to order investigation, while Section 213 allows members or others to apply to the Tribunal for investigation. Held that the petitioner, not being a member or having any interest, should have availed the remedy under Section 213 instead of filing a writ petition. (Paras 3-5) C) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Successive Petitions - The petitioner had filed three successive petitions on the same subject matter, which amounts to abuse of process of court. Held that such conduct is not permissible and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable at the instance of a third party seeking direction to the Union of India to investigate a company under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, when the petitioner has no personal cause of action and an alternative remedy exists under Section 213 of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The preliminary objection raised by the private respondents is upheld.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- locus standi of third party to seek investigation under Section 212 of Companies Act
- 2013
- availability of alternative remedy under Section 213 of Companies Act
- abuse of process of court by filing successive petitions
