CWP No. 14343 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14343 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 23, 2011 Jag Mohan Sharma …Appellant Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Guevera, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 11.01.2011 (P-11) passed by the Respondent No.4- President, Semi Conductor Laboratory-Sports Council allegedly in connivance with the Director Semi-Conductor Laboratory-respondent No.2. According to the order, the membership of the petitioner from Semi Conductor Laboratory-Sports Council-respondent No.3 (for brevity 'SCL-SC') has been cancelled and consequently he has also been removed from the post of Sports Secretary of the SCL-SC. The sports council is a body of employees constituted for the purposes of promotion of sports. The petitioner has also challenged para 4.5 and 7.2.1.4. of the bye- laws of the Sports Council. CWP No. 14343 of 2011 -2- 2. At the out set we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out the statute under which or by which the body known as SCL-SC has been constituted. We also asked him to point out whether bye-laws 4.5 and 7.2.1.4 were framed under any statute or statutory rules. These bye-laws are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Learned counsel was given time on 08.08.2011 to show that respondent No.3 and its officers/ employees like respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The aforesaid query was based on well settled principles laid down in the judgment of Five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others (1981) 1 SCC 722. On the basis of earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others AIR 1979 SC 1628, the Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia's case (supra) had summarised various tests to decide whether a body is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Those tests are as under: “(1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government." (2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of CWP No. 14343 of 2011 -3- the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character." (3) "It may also be a relevant factor.......whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected." (4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality." (5) "If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government." (6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference” of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." 3. We have apprised learned counsel for the petitioner about the aforesaid test. 4. At the hearing today, Mr. S.K. Guevera, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy us either with regard to financial contribution of the State or its instrumentality to the SCL-SC constituted by the employees of the Semi Conductor Laboratory nor he could point out any governmental control structurally or their financial contribution to the SCL-SC who has passed the impugned order. With regard to financial contribution, all that could be said was that grant is given for promotion of sports to the SCL-SC which CWP No. 14343 of 2011 -4- has been constituted by the employees of the Semi Conductor Laboratory-respondent No.2. There is no question of any financial control or any administrative control over this body by the Semi Conductor Laboratory-respondent No.2, which is the governmental company. Even the functions discharge by respondent No.3 are not governmental function. There are no public function being discharged by SCL-SC-respondent No.3 merely because one authority or the other ex-officio is office holder of SCL-SC would not make such a body and instrumentality or agency of the State. Similar arguments were repelled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prashad v. Indian Institute of Bankers AIR 1992 P&H 1. Therefore, we are satisfied that an order passed by a private body like SCL-SC-respondent No.3 cancelling the membership of the petitioner cannot be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we find that the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 23, 2011 Atul