IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar S/O Sh. Gangu Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State Of H.P. Principal Secretary (Transport) And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.2047 of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Loan - Auction of truck - Maintainability of petition - Seeking directions to respondents to further make a fresh auction as per guidelines and by giving petitioner an opportunity to participate in auction process and respondents to call records pertaining to loan, auction, transfer of registration of truck - It is absolutely clear that no doubt a writ petition would be maintainable even against a private party, provided it discharges public functions or statutory duties which are conspicuously absent as regards private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. (Para 6)
Finding of the court: There is no positive obligation, either statutory or otherwise on the Respondent to conduct the recruitment tests. For the reasons above, we are of the considered opinion that the Respondent is not amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Court have no difficulty in concluding that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being private parties not discharging any public functions or statutory duties are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
1. Allow the present writ petition and the auction of truck bearing No.HP 03 D 6262 may be set aside;
2. Direct the respondents to further make a fresh auction as per the guidelines and by giving the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the auction process;
3. Direct respondents to call the records pertaining to loan, auction, transfer of registration of truck bearing No. HP 03D 6262.”
2. It would be noticed that the auction of the truck has been conducted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. which is a private entity and not a creature of statute nor discharging statutory duties and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 against whom alone the reliefs have been claimed do not fall within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution and they are not financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. These respondents are not even discharging public duties or public functions.
4. The question regarding maintainability of the petition is otherwise no longer res integra and reference in this regard can be made to a fairly recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Mission and another vs. Kago Kunya and others AIR 2019 SC 5570, wherein it was observed as under :-
21. In coming to the conclusion that the appellants fell within the description of an authority under Article 226, the High Court placed a considerable degree of reliance on the judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607. Andi Mukta (supra) was a case where a public trust was running a college which was affiliated to Gujarat University, a body governed by State legislation. The teachers of the University and all its affiliated colleges were governed, insofar as their pay scales were concerned, by the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. A dispute over pay scales raised by the association representing the teachers of the University had been the subject matter of an award of the Chancellor, which was accepted by the government as well as by the University. The management of the college, in question, decided to close it down without prior approval. A writ petition was instituted before the High Court for the enforcement of the right of the teachers to receive their salaries and terminal benefits in accordance with the governing provisions. In that context, this Court dealt with the issue as to whether the management of the college was amenable to the writ jurisdiction. A number of circumstances weighed in the ultimate decision of this Court, including the following:
(i) The trust was managing an affiliated college ;
(ii) The college was in receipt of government aid;
(iii) The aid of the government played a major role in the control, management and work of the educational institution;
(iv) Aided institutions, in a similar
Andi Mukta Sadguru S. M. V. S. S. J. M.S.T. and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani and Ors.
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani
Binny Ltd. v. V Sadasivan (2005) 6 SCC 657
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733
G.Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute (2003) 4 SCC 225)
K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation &Drainage (2015) 4 SCC 670
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others (2002) 5 SCC 111
Rajbir Surajbhan Singh vs. Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
Ramakrishna Mission and another vs. Kago Kunya and others
Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (2012) 12 SCC 331
Regina v. Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers
VST Industries Ltd v. VST Industries Workers’ Union (2001) 1 SCC 298
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.