Sunil Manna v. The Union Of India And ANR.

30.04.2025 Court No. 25 D.Hira WPA 6817 of 2025 Sunil Manna Vs.

Union of India & Anr.

Ms. Anna Malhotra, Mr. Rishav Maity.

... for the respondent no. 2 It is noticed that on repeated occasions, the petitioner did not enter his appearance in this case. Ms. Anna Malhotra, learned advocate is appearing for the respondent no. 2, through the virtual mode. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2, the petitioner did not have of any valid cause of action, in order to sustain his writ petition before this Court, in so far as the relief sought for by the petitioner is directed against the respondent no. 2 only. That in no manner a public element is involved in the instant writ petition warranting interference of this Court. The petitioner's prayers in the writ petition, inter alia, are as below:- a) "A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to act in accordance with law.

b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to take the possession of the vehicle a sixteen wheels truck manufactured by Tata Motors Limited having model name

Tata LPT 4830 BSVI 10X2 colour white brown having Chasis no. MAT 566011P1J25998, Engine No.

B67B62300D0 2132J6322900."

It appears that the petitioner has sought for remedy against the respondent no. 2, in this writ petition. The petitioner has also stated that against the respondent no. 2, the Civil Court has been moved by him, seeking adequate remedy.

Under such circumstances, the Court finds that there is no public element involved in the instant writ petition which can warrant interference by this Court, in this case, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons as above, the writ petition being WPA No. 6817 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)