IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2172 of 2011(S) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. A.K.RAJESWARAN, JUNIOR TECHNICIAN, (SECRETARY, METRES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION) U.E.I.LTD., PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. 2. A.SOBHA KUMAR, JUNIOR TECHNICIAN (SECRETARY, UNITED ELECTRICAL EMPLOYEES UNION) U.E.I.LTD.), PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. 3. S.SATHEESH KUMAR, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, (SECRETARY, UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION) U.E.I LTD., PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.E.I.LTD., (METRE COMPANY), PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM-691 001. R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2172 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed purportedly in public interest with the prayers as follows: “i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents not to proceed with Exhibit P2 publication any further till the financial condition of the parent company, viz. The United Electrical Industries Ltd., Kollam is improved; ii) a writ of mandamus directing the state government to take necessary action on Exhibit P1 within a stipulated period of time before proceeding further with Exhibit P2; iii) such other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the policy decision of the government to establish a sub-unit of U.E.I.td., at Kuzhalmannam in Palakkad as illegal; iv) such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit for the ends of justice; and v) award costs to the petitioners.” 2. The three petitioners claim to be the employees of the company known as United Electrical Industries Limited. The said company is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the WP(C) No.2172 of 2011 - 2 - Companies Act. It appears that the said company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical meters. One of the major consumers of the products of the company, it appears, is the Kerala State Electricity Board. 3. The complaint in the instant writ petition is that though the said company is running in losses the respondents have taken a decision to establish a second unit under the umbrella of the above mentioned company at Palakkad. According to the petitioners, the decision of the respondents is discernible from an advertisement calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up of the various posts specified in the advertisement filed as Exhibit P2 with the writ petition. In the said advertisement, applications from eligible candidates are invited to fill up 87 posts. The case of the petitioners is that the decision of the respondents to establish a second unit and employ 87 people in the background of the fact that the company is already running in losses is illegal and hence the writ petition. 4. For the purpose of the present case we proceed on the basis that the respondents do in fact propose to start a second unit under the umbrella of the above mentioned company though such a fact is not clearly established. Such a decision in our view, would be a commercial decision taken by the State. The State Government is required to take various factors into consideration before taking such a decision. The mere fact that one of the units of the company is running WP(C) No.2172 of 2011 - 3 - in losses by itself is not a determinative factor to decide whether the State's decision to start another unit is illegal. It would be essentially a commercial decision if it were to be taken by a company and not associated with the State. On the other hand, when such a decision is taken by a Government owned company, further considerations also arise as the Government cannot only look at the economic viability of a commercial venture undertaken by it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that State is not purely a commercial venture and it has further statutory and constitutional obligations to be discharged. Therefore, the decision would be in the realm of the policy of the State. Whatever be the economic wisdom of the State in taking such a policy decision, the Court should keep away from scrutinizing such decision unless compelled by clear infractions of either the Constitution or laws. No such infraction is brought to our notice in the instant case. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns