Point of law : Central Government thus has complete administrative, financial and all pervasive control over the said Company. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. is thus “Other Authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

1. Review of the Judgment and Order dated 5th August 2019 passed in MAT No. 323 of 2019 (said appeal) is sought by the Petitioners/Appellants/ Writ Petitioners.

2. The said appeal (Intra Court/ Letters Patent Appeal) arose out of a Judgment and order dated 21st January 2019 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18957 of 2019 (Andrew Yule Head Office Retired Employees’ Association Versus Union of India and Ors.) (said writ petition).

3. In the said writ petition, mandamus was sought, to quash Memoranda of Settlement dated 21st December 1973 and 1983, to the extent they interfered with the petitioners’ pension and gratuity.

4. The Ld. Single Judge held that the said writ petition was not maintainable against the Respondent No.2 for being bound by two Division Bench decisions of this Court i.e. Anupam Ghosh Vs Union of India reported in 1991 (2) CHN 451 and Movewell Griha Nirman Ltd. Vs. Andrew Yule and Co Ltd. being APOT No.67 of 2008 dated 23rd July 2008. In both the cases the Division Benches had held that Andrew Yule Company Ltd. was not “State” or “Other Authority” within the meaning Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5. At paragraph 10 and 11 the Ld. Single bench held as follows :-

“(10) Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that in view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the said company has undergone a complete structural metamorphosis. The Central Government is the only share holder. It has full, deep and pervasive control over the functioning of the company. The Government guidelines themselves recognize that the said company being a Central Public Sector Enterprises is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

(11) I am impressed with the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Indeed, it appears that the structure, nature and character of the company have undergone a complete change. I would have accepted Mr. Bhattacharyya’s submissions that the company as it is today is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but for the fact that the decision in Anupam Ghosh stares at my face. I am bound by the decision and by the subsequent decision of the Division Bench in the case of Movewell Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and another versus The Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. and others which have both held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the company. Only a higher Forum can reconsider whether or not the said company is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against it ”

(Emphasis Added)

6. On said appeal being preferred, a Co-ordinate Bench found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge.

7. It is argued that error is apparent on the face of the order dated 5th August 2019 as the Co-ordinate Bench has failed to notice the predicament expressed by the Ld. Single Judge. It is argued that, the Single Bench despite finding the arguments of the petitioners prima facie acceptable could not entertain the writ petition in view of the Anupam Ghosh (Supra) and the Movewell (Supra) decisions rendered by Division Benches (said two decisions). It is argued that the Co-ordinate Bench ought to have reconsidered the legal status of Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. in view of the new facts that have come on record.

8. A preliminary objection raised by Mr. Soumya Mazumdar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Andrew Yule Co. Ltd., that Review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, cannot lie merely for change in the law.

9. Reliance is placed on the case of Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC Pg 224, particularly paragraphs 52 and 56 thereof which are set out hereinbelow.

“52. The dictionary meaning of the word “review” is