Article 226 Jurisdiction Not Intended To Provide Forum For Ventilating Personal Disputes Or Achieving Collateral Purposes Against Adversary: Delhi High Court
The Court dismissed a writ seeking direction to ICSI to act on representation against private company, says jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because representation did not yield desired action.
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that Article 226 Constitution of India jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is not meant to provide a forum for ventilating personal disputes or achieving collateral purposes against an adversary. Declining a former employee's petition against a private company, it treated the plea as an individual grievance against a private party.
The Court dismissed the petition, which sought a direction to ICSI office-bearers to act on the petitioner's representations against his former employer. It held that its jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a representation has not yielded the desired action, and gave the petitioner liberty to take recourse against the company in accordance with law.
The petitioner stated that he worked briefly with UC Web Mobile Private Company. He alleged that it was involved in anti-national activities, including hacking of the IRCTC system and cyber terrorism, and that it wrongfully obtained his confidential emails and misused them to harass him through a contempt case.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “It is pertinent to note that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary in nature and is not intended to provide a forum for ventilating personal disputes or for achieving collateral purposes against an adversary. The jurisdiction of this Court thus cannot be invoked merely because a representation by a litigant has not yielded the action so desired”.
Advocate Yashashvi Virendra appeared for the petitioner Advocate Sandeep Chatterjee appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner sent a representation to the respondent authorities seeking an inquiry against the company for illegally obtaining his emails. Aggrieved that he received neither action nor a response, he approached the High Court directly under Article 226. He sought a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action on his representations.
The Court noted from the record that the controversy arose substantially out of the petitioner's dispute and longstanding grievances against the company. It observed that, through the petition, he in effect sought a direction for adjudication of a matter concerning his individual grievance against a private party.
Cause Title: Pushpendra Singh Parmar v. President/Vice President/General Secretary ICSI (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8524)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Yashashvi Virendra, Jay Wadhwa, Advocates.
Respondent: Sandeep Chatterjee, Advocate.
Click here to read/download the Judgment