The petitioner was employed as a telephone operation in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. She claims to have complained of misbehaviour on the part of one Paramasivam, her immediate superior. Later, certain charges were framed against the petitioner and she was placed under suspension. These charges dealt with her absence from duty and instanced certain wilful acts of insubordination. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come to this court with a petition under article 226 with a prayer that the proceedings against her may be quashed. In the affidavit accompanying her petition, she denies the substance of the charges. She further alleges that there are no valid reasons for placing her under suspension. She claims that her request to allow her father to be present at the enquiry proposed to be conducted has been refused and that this denial prevents her from effectively and fully defending herself, the more so for the reason that she herself had complained of an attempt at misbehaviour on the part of a superior employee

On behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that the complaint of the petitioner against the said Paramasivam was examined and found to be baseless. The other allegations contained in her petition are denied, particularly the suggestion of the petitioner that the entire machinery of the Corporation aims at helping Paramasivam as against her. That apart, it is alleged that the respondent-Corporation is fully within its rights in launching a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and that no principles of natural justice have been violated. A further ground has been taken that the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked as the Corporation is not a public authority

As the last-mentioned contention affects the maintainability of the petition itself, arguments were addressed on that aspectMr. K. Ramaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon certain decisions in support of his contention that a writ can issue to the respondent in the present case. It is not however denied by him that the Neyveli Lignite Corporation is not a body created by a statute. It is nevertheless said that since the Government fully owns this company and it is a Government controlled organisation, the company, though registered under the Indian Companies Act, has nevertheless the status of a public authority and its actions can be brought in for examination in the writ jurisdiction of this court

Meena v. Madras University 1958 AIR(Mad) 494) has been cited. That was a case where the petitioner sought for exemption from some of the conditions for appearing for the B.T. Examination. This court observed that the syndicate must be deemed to have the power and indeed the duty to recommend suitable cases for exemption to the university. But it was accepted that the university is a public body which is vested with such power. This decision did not examine the question of the scope of the writ jurisdiction in general with reference to non-statutory organisations, though they might be public bodies in the sense that a public company is a species of a public of a public body. In Vasudevan v. S.N.D.P. Yogam 1958 AIR(Ker) 164), the learned judges observed that merely because the disciplinary proceedings are by a domestic tribunal, the High Court is not denied of its jurisdiction to interfere under article 226. Here again, they did not decide the question, for finally they dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground that the case before them was not a fit case for the exercise of the jurisdiction. Other cases cited relate to proceedings of the managing committees of schools aided by Government grant-in-aid, and courts have held that the decision of a domestic tribunal represented by such a managing committee can be interfered with under article 226 on certain grounds. But these decisions proceed on the basis that a school is a public institution and its managing committee is a public or a quasi-public body and wh