Writ petitions against private companies are not maintainable under Article 226 if no public duty is discharged and violations pertain solely to private law.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.11.2024 issued by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to be superannuated at the age of 58 years with effect from 31.1.2025.

2. Counsel for State raises preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent No.4 which is a private company. The petitioner was a Workman and is challenging his superannuation.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is controlled by the respondent No.1 and since the fundamental right of the petitioner regarding 'livelihood' is violated, therefore, writ petition is maintainable under; Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP (2023) 4 SCC 1 and the judgment passed in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the retirement before the age of superannuation as against the rule 14-A of M.P. Industrial Employment Standing Orders. Counsel for petitioner submits that as per the rule 14-A of the M.P. Standing Order rules 1963, the petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of superannuation of 60 years. Counsel for the petitioner argued that writ petition is maintainable as respondent No.4 though it is a private company, because it is controlled by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.4 is discharging public duty and, therefore, it is amenable to issuance of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that the order of the respondent No.4 retiring the petitioner on completion of age of 58 years instead of 60 years is in contravention to his right to livelihood which is an integral part of 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He referred para 88 of the judgment of Kaushal Kishore (supra) in respect of 'right to life' He also referred para 172 of the judgment passed in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra). In para 172 it has been held that a writ can be issued against a private body if it acts as a public authority and has a public duty to perform.

5. To appreciate the objection raised by counsel for the State regarding maintainability of the petition against a private company, it is apposite to survey the judgments in this regard on the said point.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan reported i n AIR 1993 SC 2178 held that private educational institutions discharge public duties irrespective of the fact they receive aid or not. The absence of aid does not detract from the public nature of the duty. These institutions supplement the effort of the State in educating the people which is the principal duty cast upon the State under the constitutional scheme. Relevant excerpt is quoted below:

"83. The emphasis in this case is as to the nature of duty imposed on the body. It requires to be observed that the meaning of authority under Article 226 came to be laid down distinguishing the same term from 11 ----Article 12. In spite of it, if the emphasis is on the nature of duty on the same principle it has to be held that these educational institutions discharge public duties. Irrespective of the educational institutions receiving aid it should be held that it is a public duty. The absence of aid does not detract from the nature of duty."

7. The case of Unni Krishnan came to be partly overruled by the subsequent eleven Judge Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and ot