Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

50. In G. Bassi Reddy vs. International Crops Research Institute, (2003) 4 SCC 225, the Supreme Court was examining the grievances raised by employees of International Crops Research Institute, who had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka on their services being terminated. Analysing the expressions, „public functions‟ or „public duties‟ the Supreme Court held that the terms are not easy to define, but reasonably speaking these would closely relate to functions akin to sovereign functions of the State and in that context observed that the primary activity of the Institute was to conduct Research and Training Programmes on voluntary basis and a voluntary service cannot be a public duty. Supreme Court relied upon the judgment in Praga Tools Corporation (supra), where the Supreme Court had construed Article 226 to hold that High Court could issue a writ to secure performance of a duty or a statutory duty but mandamus will not lie for an order of reinstatement to an office, which is essentially of a private character or to resolve private disputes. Relevant passage is as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx

58. As regards the meaning of the expression ‗public function' or ‗public duties', that has been explained by the Supreme Court in G. Bassi Reddy's case (Supra), where it has been held that public function is a function akin to the sovereign functions of the State. In our opinion, providing recreation for Air Force Officers, serving or retired, can certainly not be called sovereign functions of the State. No doubt providing entertainment or sports may be conducive to one's mind or health, but in our opinion, this is not a sovereign function of the State.

62. No doubt Courts have held that writs may lie against a private body but a caveat has been astutely lodged that only if it performs public functions, it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction. This was the dicta and ethos of the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Unni Krishnan J.P. & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 111. Taking the benchmarks and yardsticks laid down by the Supreme Court, the next question whether DGC is performing „public function‟ or „public duty‟, in my opinion, can only be answered against the Petitioners. It is uncontrovertibly obvious that DGC is providing recreational facility of golf to its members or permitted members and this cannot be termed as a function akin to sovereign functions of the State. Division Bench in Air Vice Marshall J.S. Kumar (supra), relying on various judgements of the Supreme Court including Praga Tools Corporation (supra), addressing a similar issue held that the Air Force Sports Complex is a private body which provides recreation to Air Force Officers, serving or retired and it cannot be said that it is carrying out sovereign functions of the State.

63. In General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills (supra), as noted above, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the expression „other authority‟. It was held that the form in which the body is constituted i.e. Society or Company etc. is not decisive and the real status with respect to the control of the Government is to be looked into and there cannot be a hard and fast formula. In the said case the ratio of the nominees of the State Government in the Management Committee was one-third and the State Government held 50% shares in the Mill, which was an untraversed position. However, the Supreme Court held that the Mill was not an Authority or State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, as none of the indicia existed to categorize it so and the factors that led the Supreme Court to reach this conclusion, discernable from reading of the judgment were; (a) Mill operated on self generated finances; (b) bye-laws of the Mill reflected that its membership was open to canegrowers, other societies, Gram Sabha, State Government etc.; (c) State Government could not issue any direction to the Mill nor determine its policy as the Mill is an autonomous body; (d) role of the Federation, which is the apex body whose ex-officio CMD is the Secretary, Department of Sugar Industry and Cane, Government of Uttar Pradesh; is only advisory. Significantly, the second contention raised by the Respondents was that even if the Mill is not an Authority under Article 12, the writ can be entertained as mandamus can be issued under Article 226 against any person or authority which would include a private person or body. Supreme Court, referred to the decision in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691, in which the Court had examined the distinction between an authority and a person and concluded that only when the authority or the person performs a public function or discharges a public duty that Article 226 can be invoked. Supreme Court also relied on its earlier decisions in K. Krishnamacharyulu vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg., (1997) 3 SCC 571 and VST Industries Ltd. vs. Workers' Union, (2001) 1 SCC 298, where the same principle was reaffirmed. Having examined the facts of the case before it, the Supreme Court held that as the Mill was engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar, it is not performing any public function and analogy was drawn from the judgment in VST Industries Ltd. (supra), where the Court had held that manufacture and sale of cigarettes by private persons will not involve any public function. On this analogy, I may safely hold that DGC only provides recreational facility in the nature of a sport activity restricted to its members and permissive users and it would be too far-fetched to term it as a public function akin to a sovereign function of State, which is the touchstone from which the expression has to take its colour. Thus, without any hesitation and equivocation, this Court holds that DGC is neither „other authority‟ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor it performs public function or discharges public duty, to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.