Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
IN PETITIONNO:-______________/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
PETITIONER
V.
Hilton International
RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Statement of jurisdiction..................................................................................3
Index of Authorities .........................................................................................4
Statement of facts.5
Statement of Issues ... 6
Summary of arguments....................................................................................7
Arguments advanced8
Prayer13
The Honble High Court of Delhi has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose off
the present case by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
(A) CASES CITED
1) Ujjammbai v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1621
THE
MULTINATIONAL
COMPANY,
"HILTON
interfere with the internal discipline of the University and its autonomous
working under the Statute. An august body of such importance is entitled to all
the reasonable latitude which its position deserves. I was, therefore, anxious that
the authorities themselves would realise their mistake and would rectify the
wrong which they had done to the petitioner, but I understand that, in spite of my
having given them sufficient opportunity to do so, they have consistently refused
to consider the claim of the petitioner. As I have said above, the University is a
creature of the Statute and must obey the rules and regulations by which it
professes to be bound, If it acts in violation of those rules and thereby adversely
affects the rights of others, its conduct Is open to question. I have, therefore, no
other alternative but to direct that the rules and regulations framed by the
University should be strictly followed."
In Virendra Kumar Srivatsava v. U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam,
reported in (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 149, the sole point that arose for
decision before the Supreme Court was, whether U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan
Nigam (Corporation) was covered by the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of
the Constitution and was amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case the services of the petitioner
had been terminated from the post of salesman in one of the stores of the
Corporation, against which he had approached the High Court, Allahabad. A
preliminary objection was raised by the Corporation to the maintainability of the
writ petition on the ground that the Corporation does not fall in the definition of
"State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The writ petition filed by the
petitioner in the High Court was dismissed as not maintainable, against which the
petitioner has preferred the appeal to the Supreme Court. After analysing the
factual materials and various factors, ultimately Their Lordships have concluded
thus: ( para 27) "27. On detailed examination of the administrative, financial and
functional control of the Corporation, we have no manner of doubt that it is
nothing but an "instrumentality" and agency of the State" and the control of the
State is not only "regulatory" but it is "deep and pervasive" in the sense that it is
7 1953 CWN 54
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of facts stated, issue raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed this Honble High Court that it may
graciously be pleased to:
1. Your Lordship may be pleased to entertain the writ petition.
2. Keeping in the view the case of Som Prakash v. Union of India, kindly consider
the Hilton international Company a State under the ambit of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner prays that a direction in the form of a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ be issued and the right to privacy of petitioner is ensured.