IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a registered society unless it is shown to be performing public functions or violating statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the Secretary, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut and a further order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Secretary aforesaid, requiring the petitioner to vacate his official quarters.

2. The petitioner was employed as a Supervisor in the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Garh Road, Meerut and transferred to Shri Gandhi Ashram, Khadi Bhandar, Baraut, District Baghpat vide order dated 04.09.2023, passed by the Secretary, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut. The petitioner says that he was also the elected Secretary of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Employees Union, Meerut. It is averred that the petitioner moved a complaint dated 08.09.2023 before the Branch Manager of the Union Bank and the Canara Bank, where accounts of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut are maintained, about execution of a forged sale deed on behalf of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut in favour of one Ranuka Ashiyana Private Limited, besides misuse of funds by the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut. An inquiry was conducted into the complaint and operation of the Bank Accounts of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut was stopped. The petitioner was threatened by the Secretary of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut to withdraw his complaint, upon pain of facing dire consequences.

3. It is the petitioner's case that bickering arising out of the said complaints that the petitioner had made, led the Secretary of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut to pass the order impugned dated 16.09.2023, dismissing the petitioner from service, without holding any inquiry. It is said that the order is absolutely bad in the eye of law as it was passed without affording opportunity of hearing. By the other order impugned dated 25.09.2023, the petitioner has been asked to handover possession of the house allotted to him as an employee of the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut. Both these orders have been impugned by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition.

4. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 22.11.2023, this Court passed the following order:

“Learned Counsel for the petitioner will indicate the organizational set up to show how a writ petition is maintainable against Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, which appears to be a private registered society.

Lay as fresh again on 06.12.2023.”

5. On 13.12.2023, this petition was heard on the question of maintainability, where learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 was also heard. Orders were reserved.

6. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. The petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') to submit that the respondent, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, discharges statutory duties of a public character, and, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.

8. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is neither an instrumentality of the State nor in the exercise of whatever duties it performs, does it discharge any kind public functions. The provisions of the Act of 1960 do not apply. It is also submitted that the Khadi Ashram Sewa Niyamawali is not at all statutory in character and are service rules framed by the private registered society for its employees. Even if there is violation of the Sewa Niyamawali or principles of natural justice, a writ petition would not lie against a private registered society, unless the society is discharging functions essentially of a public character or there is any violation of a statute.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has placed reliance upon the holding of