By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Violations Of Service Rules Do Not Qualify As Public Duty Under Article 226: MP High Court
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > High Court > Madhya Pradesh High Court > Violations Of Service Rules Do Not Qualify As Public Duty Under Article 226: MP High Court
High CourtMadhya Pradesh High CourtNews

Violations Of Service Rules Do Not Qualify As Public Duty Under Article 226: MP High Court

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: January 27, 2025 8:19 pm
Amna Kabeer
6 months ago
Share
MP High Court
MP High Court
SHARE

Violations Of Service Rules Do Not Qualify As Public Duty

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that violations of service rules do not fall under the scope of public duty required for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla clarified that a private institution’s actions, such as superannuation of employees, do not involve public functions.

Contents
Violations Of Service Rules Do Not Qualify As Public DutyCase OverviewCourt’s DecisionConclusion


Case Overview


A petitioner challenged Ultratech Cement Limited’s decision to retire him at 58 instead of 60. The claim was it violated his right to livelihood under Article 21. The petitioner argued that the company, controlled by the Ministry of Labour, performs public functions, making the writ petition maintainable.
The court referred to precedents, emphasizing that writ petitions against private entities are valid only when the disputed action involves public duty. It cited cases where the private body’s role was directly linked to public law, such as the Right to Education Act.


Court’s Decision


The court held that Ultratech Cement Limited’s action did not qualify as a breach of public duty. The matter was deemed to fall under private service rules. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable under Article 226.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that violations of service rules do not constitute a public duty under Article 226. This judgment reinforces that service-related disputes must be resolved within the framework of service laws. It limits the scope of Article 226 for private grievances. Thus, ensuring judicial intervention is reserved for matters of genuine public interest.

You Might Also Like

Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, Penalizes Publication of Sexually Explicit Material in Electronic Form

PC & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act Offences Are Cognizable, FIR Not Barred By Law: Delhi HC

Section 28 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS) – Withdrawal Of Powers

No Personal Presence Required in Domestic Violence Proceedings: SC

Compensation In Motor Accident Case, Married Daughters Are Eligible: Andhra Pradesh HC

TAGGED:Article 21High CourtMadhya Pradesh High CourtPublic AuthorityRight to Livelihood
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
Next Article 6-Week Deadline For States on Transgender Welfare Boards: Warns Supreme Court 6-Week Deadline For States on Transgender Welfare Boards: Warns Supreme Court
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Supreme Court Notifies Plea Challenging Kerala HC's Ruling on Muslim Woman's Right to Divorce via 'Khula'
Kerala High CourtNews

No Need for Equivalency Certificate for IGNOU Degree: Kerala HC

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
3 weeks ago
No Maintenance for Educated Wife Choosing Unemployment: Delhi HC
Delay in Reporting POCSO Offence Not a Crime: Delhi HC
Re-Testing Of Drugs in NDPS Cases Allowed Only in Rare Situations: Rajasthan HC
Consensual Love Among Teenagers Should Not Be Criminalized Under POCSO: Delhi HC
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Section 149 – Code of Civil Procedure – Power To Make Up Deficiency Of Court-Fees.

Section 148A – Code of Civil Procedure – Right To Lodge A Caveat.

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?