Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
VIVEK RUSIA, RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, JJ.
Dhiraj Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 240 of 2024
Decided On : 04-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitendra Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Ankur Mody, Tej Singh Mahadik
A government company, fully owned by the State, qualifies as an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 - Writ Jurisdiction - The case concerns the applicability of Article 12 to a government company and the maintainability of writ petitions against it - The Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation (MPSTDC) is incorporated by the State, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8, 10)
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - The Writ Court dismissed the writ as not maintainable, relying on Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual, but the petitioner argued the MPSTDC's status as an authority under Article 12. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed Marketing Executive by MPSTDC, challenged a transfer order to Lucknow, claiming the corporation is an instrumentality of the State for writ purposes. The Writ Court dismissed the petition stating MPSTDC lacks statutory duties.
Findings of Court:
The Writ Court's dismissal was unsustainable due to the MPSTDC's status as a government entity.
Issues: The main issues were whether the MPSTDC qualifies under Article 12 and the enforceability of statutory benefits for its employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the MPSTDC is a government entity, thus falling under Article 12, and was wrongfully dismissed as non-maintainable, necessitating a merits-based assessment.
Result: The writ appeal stands allowed and the case restored for merits consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on appellant and mpstdc (Para 1) |
| 2. challenge to transfer and maintainability of writ (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. mpstdc as an instrumentality of the state (Para 4) |
| 4. comparison with past rulings of the court (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. definition of 'state' under article 12 (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. writ court's order set aside for merit decision (Para 10) |
| 7. writ appeal allowed and disposed (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner/appellant has filed this present writ appeal against the order dated 08.09.2023, whereby the Writ Court has dismissed W.P. No.29192/2022 as not maintainable.
Short facts of the case are as under:-
1.1 The Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation (in short: MPSTDC) is a government agency that conducts and regulates the tourism activities of Madhya Pradesh, established in 1978 by the Government of M.P. The MPSTDC has headquartered in Bhopal and has regional offices across all the districts of Madhya Pradesh and in other states as well. The MPSTDC also operates homestays, hotels, resorts, and tourist rest houses in different key locations within the state. The MPSTDC issued an advertisement for the appointment of a Marketing Executive on a contract basis. The appellant applied for the said post, and he was called for an interview test. Vide order dated 11.02.2011, he was appointed to the post of Marketing Executive on a fixed salary of Rs.15,000/- per month with certain benefits of leave, TA/DA, deductions etc. Vide order dated 26.02.2011 the appellant was posted at the Regional Office, Gwalior and since then the appellant has been working there. Respondents enhanced the salary of the appellant from time to time.
2. All of a sudden, vide order dated 08.12.2022 appellant/ petitioner has been transferred from Gwalior to the Marketing Office at Lucknow, which he challenged by way of W.P. No.29192/2022 before this Court. While issuing notices interim protection was granted to the petitioner. In the writ petition instead of filing a reply on merit, respondents filed an application seeking dismissal of the petition as not maintainable on the ground that MPT Company is a Company registered under the Companies Act, hence, a writ cannot be issued against the respondent. The appellant filed a reply to the said application by submitting that it is a Government Company that comes under the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
3. Vide order dated 08.09.2023 the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The Writ Court has held that the MPSTDC is a Company registered under the Companies Act and does not have any statutory duty or function to perform, therefore, no mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By placing reliance on a judgment passed in the case of Praga Tools Corporation Vs. Shri C.A. Imanual and others , (1969) 1 SCC 585, the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition, hence, this writ appeal before this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is correct that the MPSTDC is a Company registered under the Companies Act,1956 but undisputedly, this is incorporated and fully owned by the State Government to develop tourism in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This Corporation runs various hotels and restaurants at tourist places to give the facilities to tourists coming from various parts of the country as well as from other countries. The entire MPSTDC is funded by the State Government, therefore, it is an extended arm of the State Government and, hence, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In another way, the MPSTDC helps the Government to develop and promote the cultural heritage of this country, it also brings foreign currency to this country by way of tourism.
5. To seek enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 62 years at par with the Government employees as per the provisions contained in M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Aayu), Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018, a set of employees of the MPSTDC app
