( 1 ) WHETHER a writ petition would be maintainable against the respondent herein, is the question involved in this appeal. The appellant who was working as a Second Medical Officer with the respondent hospital, filed the writ petition No. 5198/97 praying for the following reliefs:

"a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the clause whereby the management has reserved the right to terminate the services of its employees by giving one month s notice simpliciter in the service conditions of its employees; b) issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent not to alter the service conditions of the petitioners, unilaterally to the prejudice of the petitioners; c) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing them to dispense with the unfair practice of keeping their employees under contract for many years without regularization; d) to issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner No. 2. "

( 2 ) THE writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that as the functions of the hospital are of public importance, the writ petition would be maintainable against it.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge relying on a decision of the full bench of this court in M/s Sanghi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1996 Del 74 dismissed the writ petition by reason of the impugned judgment without going into the merit of the matter holding that the writ petition was not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, would submit that even if the respondent hospital is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable as the respondent hospital has been discharging duties of public nature and in support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on Shri anadi Mukta Sadguru SMVSJM Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V. R. Rudani and Ors. , air 1989 SC 1607, Unni Krishnan JP and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , air 1993 SC 2178 and Kuldip Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. , 1993 (25) DRJ 490.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the respondent is a charitable institution which is not financially or otherwise dependent on the State. The learned counsel would contend that the action of termination of service of the appellant was taken by way of a policy decision. The hospital is being managed by 12 trustees and none of them is a nominee of the government or statutory body. It is contended that the hospital is run in terms of a scheme framed in 1960 wherein it is stipulated that it will never be dependent upon any Financial assistance of the government. The hospital is primarily being run on the revenue generated by it from its general clinical and opd activities and donations received from various non-governmental agencies.

( 6 ) IT was contended that pursuant to a policy decision adopted by the board of Trustees, they intended to engage full time doctors. The appellant herein was having his private practice. He was offered full time employment which having been declined by him, the impugned order of termination of his service was passed.

( 7 ) THE question is as to whether a writ petition against a private person would be maintainable or not. There cannot be any doubt that a writ petition will not be maintainable in relation to a matter which does not involve public law character.

( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the respondent is a private organization. The terms and conditions of the service by and between the appellant and the respondent are purely private in nature. The same do not have any public law character.

( 9 ) IN Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru SMVSJM Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V. R. Rudani and Ors. , AIR 1989 SC 1607, the apex court although held that for the purpose of Article 226, the expression "any person or authority" should not be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentaliti