Can a Writ Be Filed Against a Private Company?

Can you file a writ against a private company? The short answer

Usually not. Writ jurisdiction exists to keep public power within the law: the government, its departments, statutory bodies and the companies and corporations that act as its arms. A private company running its own business, dealing with its own customers, employees and suppliers under contracts, is not exercising public power. A dispute with it is a private dispute, and the law has given private disputes their own forums.

But the answer is not always no. Article 226 of the Constitution allows a High Court to issue writs to 'any person or authority', which is wider than the definition of the State in Article 12. The Supreme Court has held that a private body that performs a public function or discharges a public duty can be directed by writ to perform that duty properly. A licensed electricity distributor, a recognised private school, a deemed university and, in some respects, a national sports body have all been treated this way.

The key limit is the link between the complaint and the public duty. Even a body that performs a public function is answerable in writ only for the part of its activity that is public. A private school's admission of children under a statutory quota is public; its contract with a supplier of uniforms is not. An electricity company's duty to supply under its licence is public; its dispute with an office landlord is not.

Before advising on any writ against a private company, Advocate B.K. Singh asks one question first: which statute, licence, grant, government land allotment or regulatory scheme puts this company under a public duty, and is the client's complaint about that duty? If there is no clear answer, the writ is usually the wrong route and the time is better spent on the right one.

Article 12 'State': is the company part of the government?

The first question in any writ is whether the respondent is 'the State' under Article 12. That article includes the Central and State Governments, Parliament and the legislatures, and all local and other authorities within India or under the control of the Government of India. Courts have read 'other authorities' to include government companies and corporations that act as instruments of the State.

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), the Supreme Court listed indicators: whether the government holds the share capital, whether it provides most of the funds, whether it exercises deep and pervasive control, whether the body enjoys a monopoly conferred by the State, and whether its functions are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002), a seven-judge bench said the question is whether, taken together, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the government.

On this test, public sector banks, the Life Insurance Corporation, government companies such as NTPC or ONGC, and corporations such as the Delhi Transport Corporation are treated as the State for writ purposes. A company registered under the Companies Act is not taken out of Article 12 merely because it is a company; what matters is who owns and controls it.

A private company with a minority government stake, or one that receives some government contracts, is generally not 'State'. That is where the second, wider test under Article 226 becomes important.

The public function test under Article 226

In Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989), the Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus could issue to a private trust running a college affiliated to a university, because the college was performing a public duty and the teachers' claim to pay was linked to that duty. The court stressed that the words 'any person or authority' in Article 226 are not confined to statutory authorities and instruments of the State.

Later cases drew the limits. In Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas (2003), the court held that a private bank's dismissal of an employee was not open to writ. In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), it held that the BCCI is not 'State' under Article 12, while recognising that a writ under Article 226 could still lie where it performs public functions. In Binny Ltd v. V. Sadasivan (2005), it said a writ against a private body lies only where there is a public law element; a purely contractual or private dispute will not do.

In Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015), the court held that a deemed university imparting higher education performs a public function and is answerable in writ. In Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya (2019), it held that a hospital run by a charitable mission was not, for its employees' service disputes, performing a public function, even though it received some government support. In St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2022), it held that service disputes of employees of a private unaided school are generally not open to writ unless a public law element or statutory protection is involved.

Most recently, in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd (24 January 2025), the Supreme Court held that a private non-banking finance company is not answerable in writ just because it is regulated by the RBI. Regulation by statute or by guidelines is a check on the company, not control of its affairs, and a private company's lending business is not a public function. That ruling now shapes every writ against a private bank or NBFC.

Writ maintainability: the five questions the court asks

• Is the respondent the State or its instrumentality? If yes, the writ is maintainable in principle, and the questions are only about merits, delay and alternative remedy.
• If not, does it perform a public function or public duty? Look for a statute, licence, monopoly, recognition, grant or government land that obliges it to serve the public.
• Is the complaint about that public duty? A dispute arising from the body's private contracts, employment or commercial dealings does not become public because the body also does public work.
• Is there an effective alternative remedy? A consumer commission, ombudsman, tribunal, labour court or civil court that can give full relief will usually lead the court to decline the writ.
• Are the facts disputed? Writ courts decide on affidavits. Where the case turns on oral evidence and contested accounts, the court will usually send the parties to a civil suit.

Private bodies the Delhi High Court has heard in writ

Electricity distributors are the clearest example in Delhi. BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna and Tata Power Delhi Distribution are private companies in which the Delhi Government holds a minority stake, and they supply electricity under statutory licences. The Delhi High Court has entertained writs against them for disconnection without notice, refusal of connections on conditions the law does not permit and non-compliance with orders of the consumer forum and the Ombudsman. For bill calculations, it usually sends consumers to those forums first; our guide on challenging a wrong BSES or Tata Power bill explains that route.

Recognised private schools are another. A private unaided school recognised under the Delhi School Education Act 1973 performs a public function in educating children, and is bound by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 to admit children in the 25 per cent EWS and disadvantaged group seats. Writs on EWS admissions are routinely filed against the school together with the Directorate of Education; see our guide on admission under the EWS quota in Delhi private schools. Teachers' disputes are more complex, because the Delhi School Education Act gives staff of recognised schools certain statutory protections and a tribunal route, as our page on private school teacher termination and salary disputes explains.

Private and deemed universities and institutes conducting examinations and awarding degrees are answerable for those functions, which is why students can bring writs over withheld results; our guide on what to do if a university withholds your result or degree covers it. Private hospitals that received land at concessional rates on the condition of treating a share of poor patients free have also been held to that condition through writ proceedings in the Delhi High Court.

Sports federations and similar bodies that control selection to national teams are sometimes subjected to writs for selection and eligibility decisions. Each case turns on how far the body's decision is public in character.

Where a writ against a private company usually fails

• Dismissal or salary disputes with a private employer. These go to the labour court or industrial tribunal for workmen, or to a civil suit for damages for managerial staff. A writ will be dismissed as not maintainable.
• Loan disputes with a private bank or NBFC. After the Muthoot Finance ruling, these go to the DRT where the SARFAESI Act applies, the civil court, the RBI's ombudsman scheme or a consumer commission.
• Insurance claims against a private insurer. The Insurance Ombudsman or a consumer commission is the forum, not the High Court in writ.
• Builder delays and flat possession disputes. These go to the RERA authority or a consumer commission.
• Commercial contract disputes between companies. These go to a commercial court or arbitration, depending on the contract.
• Telecom, e-commerce and app disputes. These go to consumer commissions, sector-specific tribunals or grievance officers under the relevant rules.
• Housing society and private club disputes. These usually go to the registrar of societies, arbitration under the bye-laws or a civil suit.

Private banks, NBFCs and insurers after the Muthoot ruling

Before 2025, borrowers sometimes filed writs against private banks and NBFCs over recovery action, harassment by recovery agents or refusal to issue a no dues certificate, arguing that RBI regulation made these bodies public. The Supreme Court's ruling in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance closes that door in most cases. The Supreme Court had earlier said, in Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022), that writs against a private asset reconstruction company over loan recovery are generally not maintainable, especially where the SARFAESI Act provides a remedy.

Public sector banks are different, because they are 'State'. Writs against them over fraud classification, wilful defaulter declarations and similar actions are regularly heard, and our guide on whether a bank can declare your loan account fraud without hearing you explains the rules that apply.

For private lenders and insurers, the practical routes are the RBI's integrated ombudsman scheme for banking and NBFC complaints, the Insurance Ombudsman for insurance claims, a consumer commission for service deficiency, the DRT for SARFAESI action, and the police where recovery agents use threats or force. If the RBI or IRDAI fails to act on a properly made complaint, the failure of the regulator, rather than the private company, may be the target of a writ.

Fundamental rights against private parties: the Kaushal Kishor ruling

In Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by majority that the rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State. Some articles, such as Article 17 on untouchability and Article 23 on forced labour, were always enforceable against private persons.

This does not mean every dispute with a private company can now go to the High Court by writ. The ruling concerned the scope of the rights; the remedy in a private dispute is still ordinarily a civil suit or a statutory forum. Writ courts continue to apply the public function test and the alternative remedy rule before they entertain a petition against a private party.

Where the ruling helps is in cases of serious, continuing violation of life or liberty by private actors where the State has failed to step in, for example illegal confinement or threats to a couple who married by choice. In such cases the writ usually names the police and the State as respondents for their failure to protect, along with the private persons involved.

Aim the writ at the regulator, not the company

Often the strongest writ in a dispute with a private company is against the public authority that should have controlled it. If a private school raises fees in breach of the rules and the Directorate of Education does nothing on your complaint, the writ can seek a direction to the Directorate to decide it. If a hospital refuses free treatment under a land allotment condition, the writ can seek action by the authority that allotted the land. If the RBI or the electricity regulator ignores a complaint it has a duty to decide, a writ of mandamus can direct it to act.

This approach works because the regulator is 'State', its duty is usually written in a statute or regulation, and the court's order is simple: decide the complaint by a reasoned order within a fixed time. The private company is added as a respondent because it will be affected, but the relief is against the authority.

Advocate B.K. Singh's practical tip here is to write to the regulator first, attach your complaint against the company, and wait a reasonable period before filing. A writ that shows a specific complaint to the right authority and its silence for six or eight weeks is far stronger than one that names the regulator for the first time in the petition.

Which court hears a writ against a private body

A writ under Article 226 goes to the High Court within whose territory the respondent is located or the cause of action arose wholly or in part. A writ against a Delhi electricity distributor, a Delhi school, a university in Delhi or a regulator headquartered in Delhi, such as many central ministries, goes to the Delhi High Court. A writ against a body located in Gurugram or Noida, over an action taken there, generally goes to the Punjab and Haryana High Court or the Allahabad High Court, unless part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

Inside the Delhi High Court, writs are heard by a single judge according to the roster, with an appeal to a Division Bench by Letters Patent Appeal. Maintainability is usually argued at the very first hearing, and the court may dismiss the petition at that stage, sometimes with liberty to pursue the proper remedy. Our page on writ petitions in the Delhi High Court explains the procedure.

This is a private law firm's website, not the court's. For official case status and cause lists, use the Delhi High Court's website.

Step by step: deciding whether a writ is the right route

1. Identify who the respondent really is

   Check the company's ownership and control. Is it a government company, a joint venture, or wholly private? Look at its website, annual report and the statute or licence it operates under.

2. Find the public duty

   Identify the statute, licence, recognition, grant or land allotment that obliges the body to serve the public, and the clause that covers your situation. Without this, the writ will not stand.

3. Link your complaint to that duty

   Ask whether your grievance arises from the public duty or from a private contract or employment. Be honest; the court will ask the same question.

4. Check the alternative remedies

   List the forums that could give you full relief: consumer commission, ombudsman, tribunal, labour court, civil court, RERA. If one is available and effective, use it unless there is a strong reason not to.

5. Write to the regulator

   If a public authority has power over the company, send it a written complaint with documents, and wait a reasonable time. Keep the delivery proof.

6. File, naming the right respondents

   If the writ is the right route, name the authority whose action or inaction is challenged, and the private body that is affected. Explain maintainability in the petition itself, citing the public duty and the cases that apply.

Where to go instead: common disputes, forums, time and fees

Documents that help show a public function

• The statute, licence or recognition order under which the body operates, and the clause imposing the duty you rely on.
• Government shareholding details, annual report extracts or the joint venture agreement, if ownership is in question.
• Land allotment letters or lease deeds, if the body received government land on conditions.
• Grant or funding orders, if the body receives public money for the activity in question.
• Your written complaint to the body, and its reply or silence, with delivery proof.
• Your written complaint to the regulator or public authority, and its reply or silence.
• Any order of a consumer forum, ombudsman or tribunal that the body has not complied with.
• Correspondence showing urgency: a disconnection notice, an admission deadline, a medical emergency.

Mistakes people make with writs against private bodies

• Assuming a writ is faster for every dispute. A writ dismissed at the first hearing is slower than a well-chosen civil or statutory remedy.
• Relying on regulation alone. The Muthoot Finance ruling makes it clear that RBI or other regulation does not by itself make a company answerable in writ.
• Naming only the company. Where the real failure is the regulator's, name the regulator and show you complained to it.
• Mixing public and private complaints. A petition that bundles a statutory duty with a contract claim invites the court to dismiss the lot.
• Ignoring disputed facts. If your case depends on witnesses and contested events, a civil suit is the proper place.
• Letting limitation run while the writ is pending. If the writ fails, the time for a civil suit or consumer complaint may be at risk; take advice on protecting it.

What to do this week

Write down in one paragraph what the company did, which law or licence you think it broke, and what you want. Collect the documents that show its ownership and any public duty, and your complaints to the company and to any regulator. If you have not yet complained to the regulator, do that now and diary six weeks.

Then have a lawyer test the case against the five maintainability questions above before anything is filed. Our guide on what a writ petition is explains the basics, our guide on alternative remedies and dismissed writs covers the objection you are most likely to meet, and our page on writ petitions against the government in the Delhi High Court sets out how the firm handles them.

If you would like advice on whether a writ or another remedy suits your dispute, or want updates on how the courts are deciding writs against private bodies, contact Advocate B.K. Singh here.