Back
2007(3) JLJ 125
(Special Bench)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., S.K. Kulshreshtha, A.M. Sapre,
K.K. Lahoti and Shantanu Kemkar, JJ.
M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and others v.
Madanlal Chourasia
Writ Appeal No.212 of 2007 (Jabalpur): on reference by Full Bench;
Decided on 10.4.2007.
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies in exercise of his powers under section 55(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") amended regulation 13 w.e.f. 24.12.2001 providing for compulsory retirement of an employee of the Federation on attaining the age of 50 years or completion of 20 years of service. In accordance with the amended regulation 13 of the Service Regulations of the Federation, several employees of the Federation were compulsory retired. Aggrieved, such employees filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and these writ petitions were heard by learned Single Judge of this Court. In some of these writ petitions, the learned Single Judge quashed the orders of compulsory retirement, while in some other writ petitions the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order of compulsory retirement. In those writ petitions in which the learned Single Judge quashed the orders and allowed the writ petitions, the Federation filed initially Letters Patent Appeals contending inter alia that the learned Single Judge could not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the Federation was not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
LPA No.268/2004 was one such appeal filed by the Federation. When the LPA was heard by the Division Bench on 25.11.2004, the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. M.P. Dugdh Mahasangh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit [1993 JLJ 512= 1993 MPLJ 786] was cited by the appellant in which it was held that the Federation is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The employees, on the other hand, contended before the Division Bench that this decision of the Full Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), no longer hold good in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others [(2002)5 SCC 111], and the Division Bench took the view that the decision of the Full Bench in Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), may require reconsideration by the Full Bench. [Paras 2 & 3
In its order dated 25.1.2007, the Full Bench, after considering the development of law and facts subsequent to the Full Bench, decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), was of the opinion that the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), needs reconsideration by a larger Bench of five Judges and accordingly the matter has been placed before this Bench for opinion on the question "whether M.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India." [Para 4
Held : On a reconsideration of the facts as placed before us, we hold that since the year 2001 when the Federation took the impugned decisions to compulsory retire its employees, the Federation was financially, administratively and functionally dominated or controlled by the Government and that such domination or control is pervasive and, therefore, the Federation is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of , India as per the law laid down in the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra). The opinion of the Full Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), based on the six authoritative tests laid down in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra), as applied to the facts then found by the Full Bench that the Federation is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, no longer holds good. Our opinion in this judgment that the Federation is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution will apply to all cases pending before the High Court and other Courts and which may arise in future, and will not apply to those cases which have been finally disposed of.
The consequence of our opinion that the Federation is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is that a writ petition will be maintainable against the Federation for violation of fundamental rights. 2005(1) JLJ 358 referred to. 1993 JLJ 512 (FB) overruled. (2002)5 SCC 111, AIR 1967 SC 1857, (2007)2 SCC 167, (1981)1 SCC 722, (2003)1 SCC 639, (2005)1 SCC 149, (2005)7 SCC 565 and JT 2006(5) SC 186 followed.
[Paras 21 & 22
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vu- 12 rFkk 226 && e-iz- jkT; lgdkjh Ms;jh QSMjs‘ku fy- && foÙkh; :i ls] iz‘kklfud :i ls vkSj dk;kZRed :i ls ljdkj }kjk fu;af=r gS && ,slk izHkqRo O;kid gS && bl izdkj] QSMjs‘ku] vuq- 12 ds vFkkZarxZr ÞjkT;ß gS vkSj fjV vf/kdkfjrk ds v/;/khu gSA jftLVªkj] lgdkjh lkslkbfV;k¡ us e/k izns‘k lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼la{ksi ds fy, Þvf/kfu;eß½ dh /kkjk 55¼1½ ds v/khu viuh ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr djrs gq,] QSMjs‘ku ds deZpkfj;ksa dh] 50 o"kZ dh vk;q gksus ij vFkok lsok ds 20 o"kZ iwjs gksus ij] vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk micaf/kr djrs gq,] 24-12-2001 ls izHkko‘khy fofu;e 13 la‘kksf/kr fd;kA QSMjs‘ku ds lsok fofu;eksa ds la‘kksf/kr fofu;e 13 ds vuqlj.k esa QSMsjs‘ku ds vusd deZpkjh vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Ùk gks x,A O;fFkr gks dj] ,sls deZpkfj;ksa us lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk,¡ Qkby dha vkSj ;g fjV ;kfpdk,¡ bl U;k;ky; ds fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk lquh xbZA fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ls dqN fnu fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘kksa us vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk dk vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr dj fn;k tc fd dqN fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘kksa us vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk ds vkns‘k esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;kA mu fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ftuesa fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr fd, Fks rFkk fjV ;kfpdk,¡ eatwj dh Fkha] QSMjs‘ku us izkjaHkr% ySVlZ isVsaV vihysa] vU; ckrksa ds lkFk ;g ladFku djrs gq, Qkby dha fd fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dj ldrs Fks D;ksafd QSMsjs‘ku lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds v/khu ÞjkT;ß ugha gSA QSMjs‘ku }kjk Qkby dh xbZ ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø- 268@2004 ,slh ,d vihy FkhA tc og ySVlZ isVssV vihy 25-11-2004 dks [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk lquh xbZ] vihykFkhZ }kjk fnus‘k dqekj ‘kekZ fo- e-iz- nqX/k egkla?k lgdkjh e;kZ- ¿ 1993 ts ,y ts 512¾1993 ,e ih ,y ts 786À esa bl U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ U;k;kihB dk fu.kZ; izksn~/k`r fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk fd lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds v/khu QsMjs‘ku ÞjkT;ß ugha gSA nwljh vksj] deZpkfj;ksa us [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k ladFku fd;k fd fnus‘k dqekj ‘kekZ ds ekeys ¼iwoksZDr½ esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ;] mPpre U;k;ky; ds i‘pkr~orhZ fu.kZ;ksa dh –f"V ls] ftuesa iznhi dqekj fcLokl fo- bafM;u bULVhV~;wV vkWQ dSfedy ck;ksykth rFkk vU; ¿ ¼2002½5 ,l lh lh 111À lfEefyr gS] vc ekU; ugha gSA [kaM U;k;ihB us viuh jk; nh fd fnus‘k dqekj ‘kekZ fo- e-iz- nqX/k egkla?k lgdkjh e;kZ- ¼iwokZsDr½ ij iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk iqufoZpkj visf{kr gSA ¿ iSjk 2 ,oa 3À iw.kZ U;k;ihB us] fnus‘k dqekj ‘kekZ ds ekeys ¼iwoksZDr½] esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ; ds mijkar fof/k vkSj rF;ksa ds fodkl ij fopkj djus dsd i‘pkr~ iw.kZ U;k;ihB us vius fnukad 25-1-2007 ds fu.kZ; ij ik¡p U;k;k/kh‘kksa dh c`gÙkj U;k;ihB }kjk iqufoZpkj visf{kr gS vkSj rnuqlkj ÞD;k e-iz- lgdkjh Ms;jh QsMjs‘ku fy- lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds v/khu ÞjkT;ß gS \* iz‘u ij jk; ds fy, ekeyk bl U;k;ihB ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 4À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjs le{k ;Fkk izLrqr rF;ksa ij fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ ge vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd o"kZ 2001 ls tc QSMjs‘ku foÙkh; :i ls] iz‘kklfud :i ls vkSj dk;kZRed :i ls ljdkj ds vf/kdkj ;k fu;a=.k esa Fkk vkSj ,slk izHkqRo ;k fu;a=.k O;kid gS vkSj blfy,] iznhi dqekj fcLokl ds ekeys ¼iwoksZDr½ esa mPpre U;k;y; ds cgqer fu.kZ; esa ;Fkk vf/kdfFkr fof/k ds vuqlkj QSMjs‘ku Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vFkkZarxZr ÞjkT;ß gSA rRle; ik, x, rF;ksa ij iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk vt; gkfl;k ds ekeys ¼iwokZsDr½ esa vf/kdfFkr Ng izkf/kdkjiw.kZ dlkSfV;k¡ ykxw dj ds fnus‘k dqekj ‘kekZ ds ekeys ¼iwokZsDr½ esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB dh jk; fd QSMjs‘ku] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vFkkZarxZr ÞjkT;ß ugha gS] vc ekU; ugha gSA bl fu.kZ; esa gekjh ;g jk; fd QSMjs‘ku] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vFkkZarxZr ÞjkT;ß gS] mPp U;k;ky; vkSj vU; U;k;ky;ksa ds le{k yafcr leLr ekeyksa vkSj tks Hkfo"; esa mn~Hkwr gksa] mu ekeyksa ij ykxw gksxh vkSj mu ekeyksa ij ykxw ugha gksxh ftudk fuiVkjk vafre :i ls gks pqdk gSA gekjh jk; dk fd QSMjs‘ku] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vFkkZaxZr ÞjkT;ß gS] ifj.kke ;g gS fd ewy vf/kdkjksa ds mYya?ku ds fy, QSMjs‘ku ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk pyk, tkus ;ksX; gksxhA 2005¼1½ ts ,y ts 358 fufnZ"VA 1993 ts ,y ts 512 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ myVk fn;kA ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 111] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1857] ¼2007½2 ,l lh lh 167] ¼1981½1 ,l lh lh 722] ¼2003½1 ,l lh lh 639] ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 149] ¼2005½7 ,l lh lh 565] rFkk ts Vh 2006¼5½ ,l lh 186 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 21 ,oa 22À
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made to this Bench by the Full Bench on the question whether Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (for short "the Federation") is 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2. The background facts leading to this reference briefly are that the employees of the Federation are governed by the Service Regulations of the Federation. Regulation 13 of the Service Regulations of the Federation provided for compulsory retirement of an employee of the Federation on attaining the age of 55 years or on completion of 25 years of service. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies in exercise of his powers under section 55(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") amended regulation 13 w.e.f. 24.12.2001 providing for compulsory retirement of an employee of the Federation on attaining the age of 50 years or completion of 20 years of service. In accordance with the amended regulation 13 of the Service Regulations of the Federation, several employees of the Federation were compulsory retired. Aggrieved, such employees filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and these writ petitions were heard by learned Single Judge of this Court. In some of these writ petitions, the learned Single Judge quashed the orders of compulsory retirement, while in some other writ petitions the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order of compulsory retirement. In those writ petitions in which the learned Single Judge quashed the orders and allowed the writ petitions, the Federation filed initially Letters Patent Appeals contending inter alia that the learned Single Judge could not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the Federation was not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. LPA No.268/2004 was one such appeal filed by the Federation. When the LPA was heard by the Division Bench on 25.11.2004, the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. M.P. Dugdh Mahasangh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit [1993 JLJ 512=1993 MPLJ 786] was cited by the appellant in which it was held that the Federation is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The employees, on the other hand, contended before the Division Bench that this decision of the Full Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), no longer holds good in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others [(2002)5 SCC 111], and the Division Bench took the view that the decision of the Full Bench in Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), may require reconsideration by the Full Bench.
4. The Full Bench then heard the LPA on 25.1.2007. It was brought to the notice of the Full Bench that in the meanwhile the Madhya Pradesh ~ Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in lamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others [2005(1) JLJ 358=JT 2005(1) SC 370], and as a result the LPA was no longer maintainable, but the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has in the meanwhile come into force with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1981, providing for an appeal from a judgment and/order passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to a Division Bench and therefore the Full Bench converted the LPA to a writ appeal and directed the Registry to renumber the same accordingly. In its order dated 25.1.2007, the Full Bench, after considering the development of law and facts subsequent to the Full Bench decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), was of the opinion that the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), needs reconsideration by a larger Bench of five Judges and accordingly the matter has been placed before this Bench for opinion on the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
