Locus standi to seek company investigation denied; stranger cannot bypass statutory investigatory machinery to obtain mandamus.

A trade union lacking contributory, creditor, shareholder or other direct interest cannot maintain a public interest writ to compel investigation under the Companies Act. The HC held that investigatory reliefs under the statutory scheme are confined to persons with direct interest and to prescribed authorities (Registrar/Central Government); allowing a stranger to bypass those remedies and obtain mandamus would usurp statutory jurisdiction and violate the Companies Act procedural scheme. The petitioner failed to establish a legal right or specific obligation of respondents to perform the alleged investigatory functions, and the writ was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a trade union, not being a contributory, creditor, shareholder or person otherwise interested in the company, can maintain a public interest writ petition seeking investigation into the affairs of a company and mandamus reliefs under the Companies Act.

Analysis: The petitioner's entitlement to invoke reliefs under section 234 of the Companies Act was examined in light of the statutory scheme that confines investigatory remedies to persons having a direct interest and prescribes procedures for the Registrar and Central Government to act on company affairs. The Court analysed whether a stranger to the company may invoke the statutory investigatory mechanism by means of a public interest writ petition, and whether the facts and affidavits placed before the Court met the threshold to displace the statutory remedies prescribed by company law. The Court held that the statutory scheme contemplates factual appreciation of company records by the Registrar and prescribed authorities, and that permitting a stranger to bypass those remedies and seek mandamus in public interest litigation would amount to usurpation of the jurisdiction vested in the statutory authorities and violation of the rules of practice under the Companies Act. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not established a legal right or specific obligation of the respondents to perform the investigatory functions as alleged.

Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to the mandamus reliefs sought under section 234 of the Companies Act.

---