Case: K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar Vs. The Chief Commissioner,Pondicherry &amp; Anr

This clearly implies that the quasi-judicial authority was not under the control of the Government of India like an executive or administrative authority and therefore it was not possible for this Court to issue a direction to the Government of India to direct a quasi- judicial authority to give effect to the decision of this Court "by the exercise of their powers of control over the authority outside the territory of India". It follows from these observations in the majority decision in that case that the control envisaged by the words "under the control of the Government of India" in Art. 12 is not the control which arises out of mere appointment, payment and the right to take disciplinary action; the control envisaged under Art. 12 is a control of the functions of the authorities concerned, and the right of the Government of India by virtue of that control to give directions to the authority to function in a particular manner with respect to such functions. Now if the authorities were administrative or executive the control of the Government of India would not only be by virtue of appointment, payment and disciplinary action, but it would also extend to directing the authority to carry out its functions in a particular manner and a purely executive or administrative authority can always be directed by the Government of India under which it is functioning to act in a particular manner with respect to its functions. This, however, cannot be said of a quasi- judicial or judicial authority even though the Government of India may have appointed the authority and may be paying it and may have the right to take disciplinary action against it in certain eventualities. It was not open to the Government of India to control the functions of a quasi-judicial or judicial authority and direct it to decide a particular matter before it in a particular way. It seems to us therefore that the control envisaged under Art. 12 is control of the functions of the authorities and it is only when the Government of India can control the function of an authority that it can be said that the authority is under the control of the Government of India. Such control is possible in the case of a purely executive or administrative authority; it is impossible in the case of a quasi-judicial or judicial authority, for in the very nature of things, where rule of law prevails, it is not open to the Government, be it the Government of India or the Government of a State, to direct a quasi-judicial or judicial authority to decide a particular matter before it in a particular manner. Therefore, this being the nature of the control which the Government of India must exercise in order that an authority functioning outside the territory of India may be said to be an authority under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12, a quasi-judicial or judicial authority cannot be said to be an authority under the control of the Government of India within this meaning.We are therefore of opinion that the Appellate authority being quasi-judicial could not be directed by the Government of India to decide a particular matter before it in a particular manner and therefore it cannot be said that it is an authority under the control of the Government of India. As we have already indicated, this follows from the reasoning of the majority in Masthan Sahibs Case (1), though it was not decided specifically as such in that case. We are therefore of opinion that judicial or quasi-.judicial authorities functioning in territories administered by the Government of India but outside the territory of India cannot be said to be authorities under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12, and therefore Art. 12 would not apply to such authorities functioning outside the territory of India. Consequently it would not be open to this Court to issue a writ under Art. 32 read with Art. 12 against a quasi-.judicial authority outside the territory of India even though that authority might have been appointed by the Government of India, might be paid by the Government of India or the Government of India might have the power of disciplinary action against it. The Appellate Authority being a quasijudicial authority would thus not be under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12. Therefore it would not have been open to this Court to issue a writ against the order under challenge when it was passed. In consequence it is not open to this Court now that Pondicherry has become part of India to issue a writ to the Appellate Authority with respect to an order passed by it before Pondicherry became part of India, as the Constitution for this purpose is not retrospective.10. The matter can be looked at in another way. Art. 15 prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Therefore it is only when the State as defined in Art. 12 (for there is nothing in the context of Art. 15 to require otherwise) discriminates, that a citizen can complain of the breach of Art. 15 and ask for relief from this Court under Art. 32. We have however held that the Chief Commissioner being a quasi-judicial authority was not under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12. Therefore, he could not be the State within that Article. If so, it follows that the discrimination (assuming there was any) was by an authority which was not the State. The protection of Art. 1.5 is against discrimination by "the State." The petitioner therefore would not be entitled to any protection under Art. 15 against the Chief Commissioner at the time the impugned order was made. That is another reason why the present petition must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Therefore, the interpretation put forward on behalf of the respondents seems to us to be correct both gramatically and otherwise. "All local or other authorities" would thus be of two kinds, namely, (i) those within the territory of India, and (ii) those under the control of the Government of India. In the latter case there is no qualification that they should be within the territory of India. It is enough if they are under the control of the Government of India wherever they may be. We are therefore of opinion that no writ could issue to the appellate authority at the time when the order under challenge was passed, unless it could be called "other authority under the control of the Government of India Further, , there can be no doubt that if no writ could issue to the Appellate Authority at the time the order was passed, no writ could issue now after Pondicherry has become part of the territory of India, for that would be giving retrospective operation to the Constitution for this purpose which obviously cannot be done: (see Janardan Reddy v. the State([1950] S.C.R. 940. )).The next question is whether a judicial or quasijudicial authority outside the territory of India but within the territory under the administration of the Government of India can be said to be under the control of the Government of India. For this purpose we have to find out the meaning of the words "under the control of the Government of India" as used in Art. 12. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if an authority is appointed by the Government of India, is paid by the Government of India and is liable to disciplinary action by the Government of India, it would be an authority "under the control of the Government of India". It is urged that as the Chief Commissioner, who is the appellate Authority, was appointed by the Government of India, was paid by the Government of India and was under the disciplinary control of the Government of India, he would be an authority under the control of the Government of India and this court would therefore have been entitled to issue a writ against him even when the order was passed and therefore all the more so, , when Pondicherry is now within the territory ofwe have already indicated, this follows from the reasoning of the majority in Masthan Sahibs Case (1), though it was not decided specifically as such in that case. We are therefore of opinion that judicial or quasi-.judicial authorities functioning in territories administered by the Government of India but outside the territory of India cannot be said to be authorities under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12, and therefore Art. 12 would not apply to such authorities functioning outside the territory of India. Consequently it would not be open to this Court to issue a writ under Art. 32 read with Art. 12 against a quasi-.judicial authority outside the territory of India even though that authority might have been appointed by the Government of India, might be paid by the Government of India or the Government of India might have the power of disciplinary action against it. The Appellate Authority being a quasijudicial authority would thus not be under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12. Therefore it would not have been open to this Court to issue a writ against the order under challenge when it was passed. In consequence it is not open to this Court now that Pondicherry has become part of India to issue a writ to the Appellate Authority with respect to an order passed by it before Pondicherry became part of India, as the Constitution for this purpose is notmatter can be looked at in another way. Art. 15 prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Therefore it is only when the State as defined in Art. 12 (for there is nothing in the context of Art. 15 to require otherwise) discriminates, that a citizen can complain of the breach of Art. 15 and ask for relief from this Court under Art. 32. We have however held that the Chief Commissioner being a quasi-judicial authority was not under the control of the Government of India within the meaning of Art. 12. Therefore, he could not be the State within that Article. If so, it follows that the discrimination (assuming there was any) was by an authority which was not the State. The protection of Art. 1.5 is against discrimination by "the State." The petitioner therefore would not be entitled to any protection under Art. 15 against the Chief Commissioner at the time the impugned order was made. That is another reason why the present petition must fail.