A writ petition is not maintainable against private entities unless they perform public functions or affect public rights, as judicial review under Article 226 is limited to public law matters.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujoy Paul, ACJ)

1. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Prathamesh Kamat, learned counsel representing Sri A. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9 and Sri A.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for respondent No.11.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.26298 of 2024, dated 31.12.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge opined that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The parties have confined their arguments to the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Contention of the appellants/writ petitioners:-

4. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the Writ Petition is maintainable even against a private entity, if it is involved in public duties and performing the functions of public importance. It is also maintainable if the said body/persons are acting in a manner that affects the public rights or duties. More-so, when such body/persons are regulated or controlled by the State to a significant extent. In order to show what public duty/function is, it is submitted that if a private entity is discharging functions which are indeed State functions, the Writ Petition may be maintainable. For instance- (i) running educational institutions; (ii) managing hospitals or health care services and (iii) providing essential services like electricity or water.

5. The next submission is that there exists nexus between the State and private entities herein. The respondents herein are entities operating under the Government contracts, they are receiving State funds and it is a case where the Fundamental Rights are breached. In cases of violation of Fundamental Rights, the Writ Petition is entertainable. Reliance is placed on Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayant Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R.Rudani, [1989 AIR SC 1607]. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he also placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, [1965 SCC OnLine SC 61]

2.U.P State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, (1999) 1 SCC 741

3. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649

4. Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657

5. Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University, [(2015) 10 SCR 1049]

6. Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, [(2019) 16 SCC 303]

7. Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P., [2019 SCC OnLine All 3935]

8. St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava , (2023) 4 SCC 498

9. D. Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (CSI), W.P.No.304272 of 2022 of Madras High Court, dated 29.02.2024

6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the pleadings and material on record and erred in holding that Writ Petition was not maintainable. The judgment of Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Education Society (supra) was considered by the Full Bench of Madras High Court in D. Bright Joseph (supra) and in view of this judgment, the Writ Petition was very much maintainable and the learned Single judge has erred in not considering the order of the Madras High Court.

Contention of the respondents:-

7. Per contra, Sri Prathemesh Kamat, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 9 submits that a minute reading of reliefs claimed by the appellants/writ petitioners and the parties, who were impleaded shows that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no relief is due to the writ petitioners because the Writ Petition is not maintainable. To elaborate, it is submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are individuals and not any statutory body. Respondent No.9 is a company. By taking this Court to the reliefs claimed, it is submitted that these reliefs could not have been granted in a Writ Petition. The Advocate Commissioner cannot be directed to be appointed in a Writ Petition to take care of activity of individuals or an institution, which does not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. Petitioner No.1/app