Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The doctrine of lifting of corporate veil is employed for the purpose of preventing a fraud by the corporate entity. In the present case, I do not understand that how any case of fraud can be set up for lifting of the corporate veil of the JMD Consultants by effectively making as the petitioners want to argue that M/s JMD Consultants/respondent no.2 is an alter-ego of a government organization namely UGC. I do not think that in law it is permissible for this Court to hold that JMD Consultants-respondent no.2, a private organization which employs people and further places them with entities for employment as placement agency, can be treated as an alter ego of UGC. Therefore, the doctrine of corporate veil has no application in the facts of the present case because there is no governmental ownership of JMD Consultants.

13. I may also state that in fact and reality petitioners were always the employees of a private entity namely respondent no.2/JMD Consultants. As against the private employer no writ petition lies. There cannot be allegation of violation of a fundamental right against a private entity. In extremely limited circumstances Courts do entertain writ petitions against private entities where blatant violations of legal provisions contained in important welfare legislation are shown to be violated, however, otherwise no writ petition lies against a private entity. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners being re-posted by respondent no.2 from respondent no.1/UGC to DMRC and other reliefs against respondent no.2 even if allowed to be argued cannot be the basis for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and granting of reliefs against respondent no.2. This aspect was considered and rejected as per para 7 of the judgment dated 2.7.2013