Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Shri Rohit Arya, counsel for the petitioner and S. S. Jha with Ku. Tannu Tandon, counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 heard.

4. The respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860, having its registered office at Dehradoon, therefore, is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. To demonstrate, the respondents placed before this court a compendium of Rules and regulations' of ICFRE which contains the memorandum of association, rules of ICFRE, bye-laws and other rules governing the conditions as service of the employees. Learned counsel for. the respondents took this Court through the aims and objects for which the society is established, its area of activities, constitution of the Board of Governors, governing the society to whom the management and its affairs are entrusted, and demonstrated that except the supervisory control of the Government of India, neither there is any control of the internal management of the society and its business nor the society is fully financed by the Government of India. Its activities and programmes are connected with coordination, "research and training which are not wholly related to the Governmental functions, Government supervision of control, is not conclusive, which is confined only to proper utilisation of Government grant which is only one of the sources of income. Therefore, as said by the Supreme Court, in case of Chandra Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Education Research and Training, AIR 1992 SC 76, Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of expression 'State'. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, and the aims and objects of NCERT which are exactly similar to that of ICFRE, it was submitted that Article 12 of the Constitution cannot be stretched to bring ICFRE the society within the sweep of the expression 'State'. A Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. M. P. Dugdha Maha. Sangh Sahkari Maryadit and Anr., 1993 MPLJ 786 was also pressed into service.

10. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court to determine whether it is the instrumentality of the State or not, it could be appropriate to look at the back history of the ICFRE which is not much in controversy.

11. Forest Research Institute was established in the year 1978 as a chemical laboratory attached to the Forestry School, known as Imperial Forest Research Institute and College. After independence the institute was taken over by the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture known as the Forest Research Institute and College. Later on this department was transferred to the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Wild Life in the year 1984. In order to oversee the activities relating to forestry research and education in the country and co-ordinate the efforts of all the institutions the Government of India decided to establish ICFRE. It was decided that the Forest Research Institute, Dehradoon will be the 'National Centre of Excellence', it was further decided to set up 5 more institutes of ICFRE at Bangalore, Coimbatore, Jodhpur and Jorhat, Jabalpur, which were set up by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest in the year 1988. Thereafter the Ministry of Environment and Forest of the Government of India to give an autonomous status to ICFRE which was its department treating it to be as its subordinate office, vide resolution dated 20th June, 1990, resolved that ICFRE be registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which was registered as such vide registration No. 696/1990-91 dated 12-3-1991. After registration of the Society Government of India passed a resolution dated 30th May, 1991 to transfer w.e.f. 1-6-1991 the office of the ICFRE Dehradoon together with all its institutions to the society, of which the aims and objects are mentioned in the Memorandum of Association and since then the ICFRE is enjoying its autonomous status. Prior to the transfer of the institute, its employees were the civil servants of the Central Government till their absorption in the ICFRE who opted for it, the petitioner is one of them who gave his option on 10-4-1992. The terms and conditions of the service of the members of staff and employees now are governed by the service conditions of ICFRE society.

12. The aims and objects of the society are given in the Memorandum of Association in Article No. 3 which are not reproduced here to burden this order. However, it is relevant to state that the society has to raise money for all or any purpose of the society consistent with the aims and object. Rule 39 of ICFRE speaks of funds which lays down that the funds of the society consist of lump sum and recurring grant made by the Government of India, contributions from other sources and income from investments and other sources. A cursory look to the Memorandum of Association shows that the Central Government has a deep and pervasive control on the society, which would be evident from a bare reading of clauses of Articles of Association, Rules, 'Bye-laws'. Some of them are 3(xviii), 6 of the Memorandum of Association, Rules 14, 22(a)(vii) (viii), 24, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46 of the Rules of ICFRE, clauses 4, 5, 6, 34, 35, 55(a) of the Bye-laws of the Society. Society had its Board of Governors which has to function under the directives of the Central Government as per clause 6, of the Memorandum of Association which provides that the Central Government may issue such directives to the Council of the Board of Governors, as it may consider if necessary, for furtherance of the objects of the council and ensuring proper and effective functioning and the council or the Board of Governors shall comply with such directives. Constitution of the Board of Governors consists of the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Secretary of Ministry of Science and Technology, Inspector General of Forest, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U. P., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka, Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Joint Director and Financial Advisor, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Director, Wild Life Institute of India, Forest Services of India, Vice Chancellor, Director or Director General of Forest Institutes. Rule 14 deals with the powers of the Society subject in such restrictions as the Government of India may impose and to such guidelines as the Government of India may issue from time to time, in this behalf to perform all acts and issue directions as may be considered necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the object enunciated in the Memorandum of Association of the society. Expenditure is to be incurred subject to such limitations as the Government of India from time to time may enforce under Rule 22(a).

13. From the historical background that the activities of the society were being carried out by the Government of India and were made over to the society and a reading of the Articles of Association rules, bye-laws, it is amply clear that the ICFRE enjoys the monopoly status which is the State conferred and the State protected, the functions carried by the institutions of the society are of public importance which relate to environment which is the need of the day, plenary control still resides in the Government of India, hence, it cannot be denied that the functions or it is not a Governmental activity. The aims and object clearly demonstrate that the society has been established for carrying on the obligatory functions of the State which are closely related to Governmental functions, besides the fact that initially the institutes of the society were the institutes of Government of India which were transferred to the society. Therefore, the respondent cannot contend that ICFRE is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In view of the facts stated above the decisions relied by the respondents are of no help and are distinguishable on facts.