Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 1147
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI, J.
Subhash Chaudhuri - Appellant
Versus
Indian Association for The Cultivation Of Science – Respondent
Appeal No : W.P.No. 7493(W) of 2009
Decided On : Sep 06, 2010
Shibaji Kr.Das, Aryak Dutta, Sonalee Roy
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce private duties and obligations against a private autonomous body.
Headnote:
INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE - WRIT PETITION - ARTICLES 12 AND 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - AUTONOMOUS BODY - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PRIVATE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS: 1. The Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (Association) is an autonomous body and not an authority under Article 12 or 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce private duties and obligations against a private autonomous body like the Association.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the brother of a deceased employee of the Association, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Association to pay the outstanding house building loan of his deceased sister and release the mortgaged title deeds and other valuables. The petitioner claimed that the Association was negligent in settling the terminal benefits of his sister, resulting in excess interest being charged by the bank.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Association is an autonomous body, independent to carry out its affairs, and not an authority under Article 12 or a State under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The writ petition is not maintainable as it seeks to enforce private duties and obligations and involves the determination of financial benefits and damages, which are beyond the purview of the writ court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Association is an authority under Article 12 or a State under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce private duties and obligations against a private autonomous body?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The tests for determining whether a body is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution include financial, functional, and administrative control by the government. In the present case, the Association is not financially, functionally, or administratively controlled by the government and is, therefore, not an authority under Article 12. 2. A writ of mandamus can only be issued to enforce public duties and obligations. In the present case, the petitioner seeks to enforce private duties and obligations, which are not enforceable by a writ of mandamus.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.
1. The writ petitioner claims that Dr. Subhadra Chaudhuri, his sister, was an employee of Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science and died on May 10, 2007 while in service at the age of 56 years. In course of her employment she availed of a Housing Loan under Old Account No. 01593023168 subsequently renumbered as New Housing Loan Account No. 11080193234 from the State Bank of India, Jadavpur University Branch. She deposited her Title Deeds by way of mortgage in respect of her old residential house and certain gold ornaments by way of collateral security and executed one irrevocable letter of authority dated 21.4.2003 in favour of respondent no. 1/Association empowering them to liquidate the loan amount by making payment out of any amount payable to her including terminal benefits like Provident Fund and Gratuity in case of her death/retirement/resignation or discontinuing the service.
2. AFTER her death on 10.5.2007 the petitioner being full blooded brother of the deceased employee intended to pay the dues of his deceased sister in respect of above house building loan and wrote a letter to this effect on 14.2.2008. In response in letter no. 49/480 dated 23.02.2008 the respondent no. 4 supplied the detailed statement of accounts of deceased employee from which it will appear that the outstanding dues as on 17.5.2007 was Rs.6,59,397.74 paise and on 16/2/2008 an amount of Rs.7,02,074.74 paise. Then the petitioner through his advocates letter dated 3.4.2008 requested the respondent no. 1/Association to liquidate the said house building loan of his deceased sister at the earliest under intimation to him and for releasing the Title Deeds and other valuables mortgaged by his sister with the respondent/bank. But the respondent/Association insisted for establishing his claim as a legal heir of the deceased in their letter dated 12.5.2008. Moreover, in his advocates letter dated 22.5.2008 he also requested them to disclose the total amount of actual death benefits payable to her sister, the deceased employee, so that he may file a petition for grant of succession certificate and take steps for liquidating the loan amount as per letter of authority dated 21.4.2003 of the deceased.
Thereafter, on 14.8.2008 the petitioner received a letter from respondent no. 2 intimating that since the petitioner had failed to produce any document to prove his relationship with the deceased employee, no further correspondence will be entertained in this regard by the Association in future.
3. In response he submitted several documents through his advocates letter dated 3.9.2008 to prove his sanguinary relation with the deceased. As the respondent/Association remained silent the petitioner filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 27178 (W)/ of 2008 which was disposed of by this Honble Court on 12.3.2009 with the observation that the information relating to the dues of the deceased employee will be made available to the writ petitioner by the respondents within two weeks from date. From letter no. 1.2/766 dated 26.3.2009 received from the learned advocate for the respondent/Association the petitioner came to know that the State Bank of India, Jadavpur University Branch in their letter dated 26.3.2009 has requested the respondent/Association to recover a sum of Rs.9,96,290/- against the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee being the outstanding amount in her housing loan account as on date and accordingly, the respondent/Association deducted the said sum from the death benefits of the deceased employee for adjustment of the outstanding house building loan account in terms of irrevocable letter of authority dated 21.4.2003 executed by the employee in their favour.
4. IT is the contention of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.3,36,892.26 paise has been unnecessarily charged in excess from the death benefits of the deceased employee in respect of her housing loan account on the ground that at the time of de
