IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon. Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
JYOTI KUMAR MALVIYA - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OPERATIVE LTD., PHOOLPUR PROJECT, PHOOLPUR - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 11910 Of 2000
Decided On : 03/21/2006
Whether IFFCO can be said to be an "instrumentality" of the State? Whether IFFCO discharges "public Functions" because of which it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Fact of the Case:
None
Finding of the Court:
IFFCO is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether IFFCO can be said to be an "instrumentality" of the State? 2. Whether IFFCO discharges "public Functions" because of which it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. IFFCO is not created by a Statute; that no part of the share capital is held by the Government; that practically no financial assistance is given by the Government to meet the whole or entire expenditure of IFFCO; that IFFCO does not enjoy a monopoly status; that there is no existence of deep and pervasive State control and whatever control is there, is merely regulatory in nature; that IFFCO does not perform public functions and nor are they closely related to Government functions and that IFFCO is an autonomous body which has not been created by transfer of a Government owned corporation. 2. IFFCO is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed.
" (1) Whether IFFCO can be said to be an "instrumentality" of the State? (2) Whether IFFCO discharges "public Functions" because of which it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
( 2 ) THE need to refer these two questions arose because the learned Judge felt that the decision of this Court given on 17. 12. 1991 in W. P. No. 6143 of 1984 (Shyam Lal Vs. IFFCO and Ors.) and another decision of this Court given on 26. 11. 1996 in W. P. No. 34064 of 1996 (IFFCO Employees Union and Ors,. Vs. Executive Director and Anr.) on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "iffco") in support of his contention that the said body was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court required reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors. , (1999) 1 SCC 741 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagveer Singh Vs. Chairman Co-operative Textile Mills Ltd. Shahkari Nagar, Bulandshahr and Ors,. (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1521. Article 226 of the Constitution provides that every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Part III of the Constitution deals with the fundamental rights and Article 12 which defines "the State" is contained in Part III of the Constitution. The significance of Article 12 of the Constitution has been emphsised by a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court consisting of seven Honble Judges in Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. , (2002) 5 SCC 111 in the following words :-
"but before considering the decisions it must be emphasized that the significance of Article 12 lies in the fact that it occurs in Part III of the Constitution which deals with fundamental rights. The various Articles in Part III have placed responsibilities and obligations on the "state" vis--vis the individual to ensure constitutional protection of the individuals rights against the State, including the right to equality under Article 14 and equality of opportunity in maters of public employment under Article 16 and most importantly, the right to enforce all or any of these fundamental rights against the "state" as defined in Article 12 either under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts by issuance of writs or directions or orders. " (emphasis supplied)
( 3 ) AS seen above, Article 226 of the Constitution confers powers on the High Courts to issue to any person or authority writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as
for any other purpose. The power to issue writs of the nature expressly mentioned "to any person" can only mean the power to issue such writ to any person to whom, according to well established principles the writ lay and the words for any other purpose must mean a purpose other than enforcement of fundamental rights for which any of the writs would, according to established principles issue i. e. for enforcement of some other legal right and the performance of some legal duty.
( 4 ) THE word "state" has been defined in Article 12 to include the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar explained the scope of Article 12 and the reas
Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.
Praga Tools Corporation Vs. C.A. Amanul
Sabhajeet Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and Ors.
G. Bassi Reddy Vs. International Crops Research Institute and Anr.
Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Binny Ltd. and Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan and Ors.
REFERRED TO : U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Mohan Lal and Ors.
Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Ors.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors.
Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas
M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
VST Industries Ltd. Vs. VST Industries Workers Union and Anr.
AI
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.