Separate corporate personality bars Article 285 challenge where a Government-controlled company is not the Union itself.

A company incorporated under the Companies Act remains a separate juristic person, even if its shares are wholly held or controlled by the Central Government. Vesting and control provisions under the nationalisation law, and the status of a Government company, do not make the company the Union for the purpose of Article 285. As Article 285 protects only Union property, the petitioner could not invoke that protection to challenge clauses (c), (e) and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The writ was also premature against the notices and proceedings, and the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the constitutional challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, could invoke Article 285 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of clauses (c), (e) and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, on the footing that its assets and business had vested in the Union, and whether it had locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Analysis: A company incorporated under the Companies Act has a distinct juristic personality separate from its shareholders, even where the entire shareholding is held or controlled by the Central Government. The vesting and control provisions under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and the status of a Government company under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, do not convert the incorporated company into the Union itself. Article 285 protects the property of the Union, and that exemption is unavailable to an entity that is not the Union. Since the petitioner was not the Union and was not directly aggrieved in law by the impugned provisions, the Court held that the constitutional challenge could not be maintained by it. The challenge to the notices and proceedings was also premature.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no locus standi to question the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

---