S A R CHAURASIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2001 and the order dated 23.11.2001 transferring and promoting the petitioner and thereafter terminating the service on 20.12.2001.

(3.) In our opinion, this writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner is an employee of Span Consultants Private Limited, respondent No. 4 which is a purely private body. In our opinion, ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. No doubt Article 226 is very widely worded. Article 226 of the Constitution states that writs will He to any person or authority and it will lie in enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. However, the words "to any person" cannot be interpreted literally. The correct interpretation of this expression means that writs will lie to a person or authority to which writs were traditionally issued by British Courts on well established principles. Similarly though Article 226 states that writs can be issued "for any other purpose", this expression also cannot be construed literally. It means that writs can be issued for the purpose for which writs were traditionally issued by the British Court on well established principles.