The judgment established the principle that a private organization, even if discharging a public duty, may not fall within the scope of 'State' or 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India if it does not exhibit pervasive control by the Government or perform a State function.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is challenging the election process of the Governing Council (hereinafter referred as ‘GC’) of the respondent No.3-Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers (hereinafter referred as respondent-IETE) for the term 2022-25 with further directions to conduct fresh elections.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the process of election was to be initiated through a Board of Scrutineers (BoS) comprising of four or more members, one Returning Officer (RO) amongst them for conducting of the GC election of respondent No. 3. The same was done in January, 2022. On 24.05.2022, Dr. A.K. Saini was appointed to take up the responsibility of RO for the term 2022-25. On 01.07.2022, Brahmanand Reddy made a complaint to Dr. A.K. Saini against fake casting of vote in favor of Nilesh Kasat and P.M. Jawandiya by hacking his ID and thereafter, on 02.07.2022, FIR No. 1217/202 was registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Hyderabad by Brahmanand Reddy. On 06.07.2022, respondent Nos.6 to 12 were declared winners. However, petitioner sent e-mails to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 regarding malpractices and, thereafter on 18.08.2022, the petitioner sent a legal notice and another criminal complaint was filed at Police Station Lodhi Road on 19.08.2022. On 29.08.2022, the petitioner received a reply to the legal notice from respondent Nos. 3 and 4, whereby, they denied the allegations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6, 9 to 12 raises an objection with respect to the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that respondent No. 3-IETE is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While filing an application for vacation of the order of status quo, he stated that respondent No.3-IETE is neither a ‘State’ nor ‘other authorities’ for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred as Constitution). According to him, the IETE is a private body having its own Articles of Association and Byelaws (hereinafter referred as AoA) which can be amended without any approval from any government agency.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 6, 9 to 12, stated that respondent No. 3-IETE is financially independent and is not receiving any regular financial aid from any government agency. According to him, the respondent No. 3-IETE is governed by its GC, with no member or representative from any government department or government agency. He stated that the object of respondent No. 3- IETE is to promote the general advancement of Telecommunication Engineering, Electronics, Computer Science and Engineering, Information Technology and allied subjects and their applications and to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas of these subjects. The membership is restricted to graduates in Engineering and the same is not open to the general public. He placed reliance on a recent decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Dr. Jitarani Udgata v. Union of India and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3449, dated 17.10.2022. According to him, while delivering the judgment, this court in the case of Jitarani (supra) has relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various earlier pronouncements in the cases of Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649; Ajay Hasia v. Kahlid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors, (2002)5 SCC 111; Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, (2011)) 13 SCC 774 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Saikat Ghosh v. Institution of Engineers (India and Ors), 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 97. He further stated that the function of the respondent No. 3- IETE cannot be said to be public or the said respon