Writ jurisdiction not for personal disputes: Delhi High court
The Delhi High Court has held that writ jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and not intended to provide a forum for litigants to ventilate personal disputes.
The High Court pulled up a man for filing a writ petition over a personal dispute against a private firm, saying that the court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a litigant’s representation has not yielded the desired action.
Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the plea of the man seeking action against the firm, claiming it was involved in various anti-national activities, including hacking of the IRCTC system. The court found no merit in the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse against the firm in accordance with the law.
“It is pertinent to note that the jurisdiction under Article 226 (power of high courts to issue certain writs) 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,” Justice Mahajan said in an order passed on September 29.
The petitioner’s case was that he was an employee of the private firm which he left after working for a short period. He claimed that the company was involved in various anti-national activities, which included hacking of the IRCTC system, alleged ignition of riots between religious communities, and activities pertaining to cyber terrorism.
The petitioner alleged that the company wrongfully obtained a copy of his confidential emails through undisclosed sources and misused them to harass him by filing a contempt case against him.
The petitioner said he sent a representation to the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) seeking an inquiry against the firm for illegally obtaining his confidential emails, but claimed that they did not initiate any action or response.
The court noted that the controversy substantially arises out of the petitioner’s dispute and longstanding grievances against the firm and, through this petition, he seemed to seek a direction for adjudication of a matter concerning his individual grievance against a private party. PTI
