SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Cal) 107

High Court Of Calcutta
B. C. Ray
M.L.SHAW - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
.  .   Of  .
Decided On : 04/19/1983

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.DUTTA, P.L.SHOME, SADANANDA GANGULY, SAKTINATH MUKHERJI

The definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India encompasses statutory authorities with governmental functions, but excludes voluntary associations and companies registered under the Companies Act.

Headnote:

ARTICLE 12 - BENGAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, representing M/s. Metal Smelting Company and M/s. Hindusthan Lead Alloys, challenged the second set of nomination papers filed by the outgoing Managing Committee of the Bengal National Chamber of Commerce. They sought a declaration that the nomination papers filed for four office-bearers and twenty ordinary members be declared ipso facto elected to the Executive Committee.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, despite its autonomous position and past privileges, could not be considered a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It lacked the characteristics of a public administrative agency or corporation with quasi-governmental powers and revenue-producing public enterprise.

Issues: 1. Whether the Bengal Chamber of Commerce is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners' challenge to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce's actions is maintainable in the High Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Article 12 of the Constitution, which defines the term 'State' as including the Government, Parliament of India, State Governments and Legislatures, and other local and other authorities within India's territory or under the Government of India's control. 2. The court distinguished between voluntary associations and statutory authorities, holding that only statutory authorities vested with governmental functions could be considered States under Article 12. 3. The court cited precedents such as Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air Port Authority and Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal to support its interpretation.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' application, holding that the Bengal Chamber of Commerce was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 and, therefore, the challenge to its actions was not maintainable in the High Court.

B. C. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS application is only at the instance of two petitioners of whom the petitioner No. 1 is the authorised representative of M/s. Metal Smelting Company and the petitioner No. 2 is the authorised representative of M/s. Hindusthan Lead Alloys, who have challenged in this writ application the second set of nomination papers that has been filed or attempted to be filed on behalf of the outgoing Managing Committee and also for a declaration that the nomination papers that have been filed namely for the post of four office-bearers and twenty ordinary members should be declared as ipso facto elected to the Executive Committee of the Bengal National Chamber of Commerce. There was a further prayer for issuance of an order or writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to hold the annual General Meeting of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce declaring the four office-bearers and twenty ordinary members, as mentioned in this petition, as duly elected to the Executive Committee in terms of Article 34 (i) and (ii) of the Articles of the Chamber.

( 2 ) IT has been submitted in support of this application by Mr. Dutt. learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that this Chamber of Commerce is a local authority and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it has been granted a licence under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the activities in which it is engaged are non-profit making activities. It has further been submitted that this Bengal Chamber of Commerce also is an autonomous body and in para 11 of the petition it has been stated that it has been authorised to send its representative to the Central and Bengal Legislatures under the previous Government of India Act, 1919 as well as the Government of India Act. 1935 and it continued to have the right of electing two representatives on the Bengal Legislative Assembly, up to the date of the enforcement of the Constitution of India in 1950. It has also been stated in para 12 of the petition that the Chamber achieved a position of eminence in the commercial, industrial as well as particularly in the economic field of the country much beyond the direct interest of it's group of members. As such it is a State being one of the other authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THIS submission of Mr. Dutt, after examination closely, cannot be accepted for the reasons stated hereinbelow. Article 12 of the Constitution does not define the word State but it gives an inclusive definition, namely, the State includes Government, Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each of the State and all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. So in order to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution it must be an authority. The word authority is very significant. It means and includes only those whose orders are to be obeyed by the citizens of the State. By the very word authority it excludes voluntary association, association created under a general statute just like the Companies Act but it includes statutory authorities, authorities which are brought into being by an Act are vested with governmental duties, namely, the Steel Authority of India, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Indian Airlines Authority as well as the Bharat Petroleum, to cite some of the instances of the statutory (authorities. This point has been made (clear by a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court )) (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air Port Authority) where Bhag-wati, J. after considering the earlier decision where Mathew, J. has observed that authority exercising governmental functions will be treated as a statutory authority, in Indian Airlines case, has held in very clear and lucid terms that all statutory authorities which are vested with governmental


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top