The judgment emphasizes the need for petitioners to establish the status of an entity as a 'State' or 'authority' under Article 12 and clarifies the scope of Article 21 in relation to private body disputes.

Sujoy Paul, J.:-

1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Rotary Club, Birla Nagar through its President Raj kumar Tamotiya and petitioner No. 2 Deependra Kumar Tamotia have prayed for the following reliefs: -

(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the order Annexure P/1 dated 16-7-2013 issued by the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to be quashed,

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.

2. When this matter was taken up, a preliminary objection was taken by the other side contending that this writ petition is not maintainable against Annexure P-1. Thus, with the consent, the parties were heard only on the question of maintainability of the petitioners.

3. Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri M.P. Mangal submits that the respondent-Rotary International is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is “State” Within the meaning of Article 12 and if it is not State, it must be treated as “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, To elaborate this submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rotary International, South Asia Office is registered under section 25 of the Companies Act. The aim, object and nature of activity of the Rotary Club is for common welfare of the people. Thus, it should be treated as extended arm of the State. In addition, it is submitted that the Rotary Club is engaged in the activities of public welfare and, therefore, it can be held to be a 'State' or 'authority'.

4. Learned senior counsel submits that the welfare activities which are being undertaken by the Government are also performed by the Rotary Club and, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Rotary Club is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To bolster this submission with legal authorities, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 166, Anirudh Dwivedi v. State Chief Commissioner, Bharat Scout and Guide and another. In addition, heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in (2005) 6 SCC 657, Binny Ltd. and another v. V. Sadasivan and others. The learned senior counsel submits that Binny Ltd. was a private company and it was neither an authority nor an instrumentality of the State. It was not even performing any public function or duty nor it was bound by rules and regulations, yet the Apex Court considered the meaning of the word “Public Function” and opined that when a body seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public and is accepted by public having authority to do so or where the body is intervening or performing any social or economic affairs in public interest, it would be performing a public function.

5. By placing reliance on AIR 2000 SC 1603, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and others, it is contended that even in case of tortuous liability and when Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. The learned senior counsel lastly submits that the petitioner's right to live with dignity is taken away by issuance of the impugned order Annexure P-1. He submits that his fundamental right of contesting election is sought to be taken away by Annexure P-1. For this he relied on AIR 1950 SC 27, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. Shri Bharadwaj also relied on Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649, Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others.

6. Per contra, Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that this petition is not maintainable. The impugned order Annexure P-1 is an E-Mail