SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 1361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
MAIKU - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondents
Civil Misc. Petition 15223 Of 1987
Decided On : 12/02/1996

Advocates Appeared:
A.KUMAR, Salil Kumar Roy, TRILOKI NATH

A writ petition is not maintainable against a private body with no public duty and an order terminating the service of an employee is not passed in discharge of public duty if the service is not governed by statutory rules.

Headnote:

WRIT - Maintainability - Co-operative Society - Private Body - No Public Duty - No Statutory Rules Governing Service - Termination of Service - Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction - Order Not Passed in Discharge of Public Duty - No Certiorari Against Private Body.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, employed by a Co-operative Society, challenged the order terminating their service, alleging that it was passed without holding an enquiry and attaching stigma. The Society contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Society was a private body with no public duty and the service was not governed by statutory rules.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Society was a private body with no public duty and the service was not governed by statutory rules. The order terminating the service was not passed in discharge of public duty and, therefore, certiorari could not be issued against the private body.

Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable against a private body with no public duty? 2. Whether the order terminating the service was passed in discharge of public duty?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition is not maintainable against a private body with no public duty. 2. An order terminating the service of an employee is not passed in discharge of public duty if the service is not governed by statutory rules.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

D. K. SETH, J.


( 1 ) MR. A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the order dated 30th June, 1987 terminating the petitioners1 service being Annexure 2 to the writ petition, on the ground that the said order was passed after attaching stigma to the petitioners without holding any enquiry. Therefore, the said order should be set aside.

( 2 ) MR. S. K. Roy holding, the brief of Mr. Triloki Nath counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, took a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the Society with which the petitioners claim to have been engaged is a Co-operetive Society and not a State within the meaning of Article 72 of the Constitution of India. His second ground of attack to the maintainebility of the writ petition is that the service or the petitioners was not governed by any statutory rules and, therefore, while terminating the service the order that was passed by the Society is not a function in discharge of public duty and, therefore, the exceptions is which mandamus can be issued are not present in the facts and circumstances of the case. Then again, according to him, no certiorari can be issued against a private Body.

( 3 ) MR. A. Kumar, in counter to the said argument, contended that the order contained in annexure 2 indicates that the same was passed on the direction of the District Registrar, who is a public functionary. An order passed by a public functionary is amenable to writ jurisdiction. According to him, the direction issued by the District Registrar is in discharge of his public duty and admittedly he is a public functionary. According to him the order is so bad that it fulfills the principle on which the principle of lifting the veil is attracted.

( 4 ) MR. Kumar, in support of his contention, relied on the decision in the case of Sri Anadi Mukta sadguru S. M. V. S. J. M. S. Trust v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607. Relying on para 14, he contends that if the rights are purely of a Private character no mandamus can be issued. If the management is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are the only exceptions in issuing mandamus. But the present case does not satisfy the tests or ingredients of exception as mentioned therein.

( 5 ) IN the present case, though it is alleged that the petitioners service was governed by the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, but nothing has been shown to this court particularly by production of appointment letter that the petitioners were appointed following the provision for recruitment and appointment as provided in the said Service regulations. The fact remains that the said 1975 Regulation applies only to the Society, the area of operation of which exceeds the limit of the District. Admittedly in the present case, the area of operation of the Society does not exceed the limit of the District. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically contended that the area of operation of the Society is confined within the Block Maudaha in Tehsil Mahoba, District Hamirpur. The said fact has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. Thus admittedly, the 1975 Regulation does not apply in the case of the petitioners.


( 6 ) IN paragraph 14 of the Judgment in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S. M. V. S. J. M. S. Trust (supra) it has been observed by the Apex Court as under :

"14. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can be issued. If the management of the College is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus. But once these are absent remedy of mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated that the appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as Government aid. Public money paid as Government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. The aided institutions like Gover






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top