An association must qualify as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or discharge an important public function to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The primary legal issue which is involved in the present writ petition is, whether Bihar Police Men's Association is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. There are two aspects to this issue.

Firstly, whether the said Association can be said to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it will certainly be amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, if the said question is answered in negative, amenability of the Association to writ jurisdiction will depend on the second aspect as to whether the Association discharges any public function or not.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application is a constable in Bihar Police, presently posted at Gaya. He filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the candidature/nomination of respondent No. 6 for the post of “Pradesh Adhyaksh of Bihar Police Men's Association” on the ground that after having been transferred from Patna to Lakhisarai, his candidature itself was invalid as he had not joined his new place of posting. The petitioner further sought for a direction to conduct free and fair election of the Central Executive of the Bihar Police Men's Association. During the pendency of the writ application, the election has been held, in which respondent No. 6 has been declared elected on 20.03.2021. Accordingly, an Interlocutory Application has been filed in August 2021 seeking amendment in the writ petition to challenge the election of respondent No. 6 as Pradesh Adhyaksh of Bihar Police Men's Association.

3. In the wake of the facts noted above, the issue which has been framed at the very outset has emerged. The identical issue had earlier come up for consideration before this Court in case of Constable No. 756 Liaquit Ali Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 15891 of 2017)(SB). In the decision rendered on 22.11.2017 in the case of Liaquit Ali (supra), noticing Supreme Court's decision in case of Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Tomas & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649, a Single-Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 10 as under :-

“10. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that a writ proceeding, which is against an Association, which is neither State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor an authority nor a statutory body nor an instrumentality or agency of the State nor financed by the State nor run on State funding and is purely a private body voluntarily framed by its members having its own rules and regulations and discharging no public duty or obligation of public nature, is not maintainable.”

4. We must make it clear that the said decision in case of Liaquit Ali (supra) relates to the same Bihar Police Men's Association. Similar view has been taken in a subsequent Single-Bench decision rendered on 09.07.2018 in CWJC No. 5589 of 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police and Ors.).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently relied on a guideline issued on 18.03.2021, by the Director General of Police, Bihar to contend that nomination of respondent No. 6 to contest election was invalid as he was already transferred to Lakhisarai from Patna and he had not joined his place of posting. He has submitted that since the election has been held in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, Bihar and under the supervision of a Senior Police Officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police, an interference in the process of election is required by this Court in writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that respondent No. 6 was ineli