Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors., dealing with the scope of power under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce public law duties and granting public law remedies held-

"The founding fathers placed no limitation or fetters on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-imposed limitations. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Court as sentinel on the qui vive is to mete out justice in given facts. On finding that either the workmen were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Act or were continued as contract labour, despite prohibition of the contract labour under Section 10(1), the High Court has, by judicial review as the basic structure, constitutional duty to enforce the law by appropriate directions. The right to judicial review is now a basic structure of the Constitution by catena of decisions of this Court starting from Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India . It would, therefore, be necessary that instead of leaving the workmen in the lurch, the Court would properly mould the relief and grant the same in accordance with law.

22. Since Government of Karnataka holds more than 50% of total share- capital, by virtue of provisions of Section 53-A of the Act, it is empowered to nominate 1/3rd of total number of members of the Managing Committee of first respondent-society as its representatives. It is very significant to notice that under Sub-section (2) of Section 53-A, a person nominated as a member of a Committee of the co-operative society shall hold office as such member during the pleasure of the State Government. In other words, unless the State Government consents for removal of such member, the Board of Directors themselves cannot remove any nominated member from the Committee. Section 54 also invests a very vital and crucial power in the State Government to take over the control of management of the Co-operative Societies in respect of which societies it has granted aid amounting to not less than Rs. 2 lakhs if such an action was imperative in the estimation of the Government to safeguard the interest of the State. Under Bye-law 21(1)(A), the nominee of the State Government shall have a right of appeal to the Government against the decision of the Board which is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the Government and/or of Industrial Finance Corporation of India, Industrial Development Bank of India, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India and Life Insurance Corporation of India and the decision of the Government shall be binding on the Board. This particular provision demonstrably shows us that the nominees of the Government on the Board play vital role as sentinels to safeguard and protect the interests of the State Government and other public financial institutions.

27. The Apex Court in Rohtas Industries Limited and Anr. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union and Ors., had occasion to deal with the expansive and extraordinary power of the High Court in the following words:

"9. The expansive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Article 226 is as wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so can affect any person -- even a private individual -- and be available for any (other) purpose--even one for which another remedy may exist. The amendment to Article 226 in 1963 inserting Article 226(1-A) reiterates the targets of the writ power as inclusive of any person by the expressive reference to "the residence of such person". But it is one thing to affirm the jurisdiction, another to authorise its free exercise like a bull in a china shop. This Court has spelt out wise and clear restraints on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome inhibitions except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug should be judiciously administered. Speaking in critical retrospect and portentious prospect, the writ power has, by and large, been the people's sentinel on the qui vive and to cut back on or liquidate that power may cast a peril to human rights. We hold that the award here is not beyond the legal reach of Article 226, although this power must be kept in severely judicious leash".