Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004359

LPA 315/2021 Page 1 of 38

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 17^th OCTOBER, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

LPA 315/2021

DR JITARANI UDGATA

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Anoop Chaudhari & Ms. June

Chaudhari Senior Advocates with Mr.

Samarth Chowdhary, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vivekanand Mishra & Mr.

AayushmaanVatsyayana, Advocates

for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Mr.

Vardaan Bajaj & Mr. Abhishek

Tiwari, Advocates for Respondent

No.2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

1.

The present appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dated

09.07.2021 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.

4733/2021 whereby the writ petition of the Appellant herein was dismissed

on the ground that it was not maintainable as Gems & Jewellery Export

Promotion Council (“GJEPC”), i.e. Respondent No.2, did not fall within the

ambit of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950

(hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”).

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM

SINGH KIRMOLIYA

Signing Date:19.10.2022

13:21:02

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004359

LPA 315/2021 Page 2 of 38

2.

The short question which had arisen before the learned Single Judge

when the writ petition had been listed for the first time on 16.04.2021 was

whether the same was maintainable. It had been argued on behalf of

Respondent No.2 that it was not a statutory body, but was a company

incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore,

fell outside the parameters essential for Respondent No.2 to be declared as

an entity within the meaning of “State” under Article 12. The Appellant had,

however, argued vehemently that as GJEPC functioned under the

sponsorship of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter referred

to as “MOCI”), it could be deemed to be an instrumentality of the State

within Article 12 due to the extent of the regulation, control and supervision

that MOCI exercised over it.

3.

Vide impugned Judgement dated 09.07.2021, the learned Single Judge

held that the writ petition was not maintainable and stated the following:

accordingly.”

4.

Aggrieved by the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned

Judgment dated 09.07.2021, the Appellant herein has approached this Court

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM

SINGH KIRMOLIYA

Signing Date:19.10.2022

13:21:02

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004359

LPA 315/2021 Page 3 of 38

by way of an appeal in an attempt to establish the maintainability of W.P.(C)

4733/2021.

5.

Mr. Anoop Chaudhuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant herein, at the outset, submits that the learned Single Judge has

erred gravely by holding Respondent No.2 is not amenable to writ

jurisdiction as it falls outside the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution.

He states that Respondent No.2 exercises no autonomy and this is

exemplified by the financial control that is exerted by the MOCI over it. He

relies on the 73^rd Report of the Rajya Sabha that was presented to the House

on 04.05.2020 wherein the delay in the Annual Reports and Audited

Accounts on the part of Respondent No.2 had been discussed by the Rajya

Sabha. He states that the said Report iterates that the GJPEC was set up in

1966, operated under the supervision of the Ministry of Commerce,

Government of India, and that it represented an industry which was India‟s

la