Case: U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey

lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field. The question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the public law or private law character of the question and the host of other relevant circumstances. Therein, the question was whether the management of LIC should record reasons for accepting the purchase of the shares ? It was in that fact situation that this Court held that there was no need to state reasons when the management of the shareholders by resolution reached the decision. This Court equally pointed out in other cases that when the States power as economic power and economic entrepreneur and allocator of economic benefits is subject to the limitations of fundamental rights, a private Corporation under the functional control of the State engaged in an activity hazardous to the health and safety of the community, is imbued with public interest which the State ultimately proposes to regulate exclusively on its industrial policy. It would also be subject to the same limitations as held in M.C. Mehta and others v. Union of India and others, 1987(1) SCC 395." 23. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Konaseema Co- operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram and another v. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 A.P. 171 was considering the question whether a writ petition lay against a cooperative society and if it does, in what circumstances. After examining various decisions and treatises on the subject it was stated that even if a society could not be characterised as a `State within the meaning of Article 12 even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty which an employee is entitled to enforce against the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a `person, or an `authority, within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution. What is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it, and the Court is to enforce such statutory public duty. 24. In view of the fact that control of the State Government on the appellant is all pervasive and the employees had statutory protection and therefore the appellant being an authority or even instrumentality of the State would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may not be necessary to examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from the language of the Article 226 there does not appear to exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of the Article it is not necessary for us to rely on the decision of English Courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including in appropriate cases, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367 unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372 apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. "Person" under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company, or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountain head of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this court has laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is established procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to bye-pass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. High Court does not act like a proverbial `bull in china shop in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.25. We, therefore, hold that appellant is an authority controlled by the State Government and the service condition of the employee of the appellant particularly with regard to disciplinary proceedings against them are statutory in nature and thus writ petition was maintainable against the appellant. To this extent, we agree with the High Court. However, disciplinary proceedings were held against the respondents in accordance with law with due observance of the rules of natural justice. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, not correct to that extent.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]The respondents were apprised of the evidence against each of them and given opportunity of being heard in person and also to produce evidence in defence. Nothing more was required on the part of the Inquiry Officer. Procedure after the receipt of the reports of the Inquiry Officer was followed as prescribed. In our view, the High Court, therefore, fell in error in returning a finding that rules of natural justice or the Regulations and Service Rules which are statutory in nature have not been followed.In view of the fact that control of the State Government on the appellant is all pervasive and the employees had statutory protection and therefore the appellant being an authority or even instrumentality of the State would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may not be necessary to examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from the language of the Article 226 there does not appear to exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of the Article it is not necessary for us to rely on the decision of English Courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including in appropriate cases, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367 unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372 apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. "Person" under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company, or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountain head of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this court has laid down certain guidelines andlimitations have been put there subject to which High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is established procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may not be allowed tothe normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. High Court does not act like a proverbial `bull in china shop in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.25. We, therefore, hold that appellant is an authority controlled by the State Government and the service condition of the employee of the appellant particularly with regard to disciplinary proceedings against them are statutory in nature and thus writ petition was maintainable against the appellant. To this extent, we agree with the High Court. However, disciplinary proceedings were held against the respondents in accordance with law with due observance of the rules of natural justice. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, not correct to that extent.