Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"The activity in order to be amenable to writ jurisdiction must be of public character and public duty bound by enforceable statutory obligations in the performance of its duties or business. Alas, no material has been placed on the file of this case to show positively that the Central Government has any deep and pervasive control over the functioning of the society not only in what has to be done, but the manner in which it is to be performed. Mere doles or freebies or replenishments are not enough to hold them amenable since those may be aimed only to encourage the activity, otherwise every non- government organization [NGO] may fall under the ambit of Articles 12 and 226. There must be deep, pervasive and functional control by State. Mere accountability of expenditure may not be enough since the one who parts with money may ask for rendition of accounts. The training centre gets no binding instructions from the Central Government or direct aid unless, as urged, routed through the AEPC which may qualify the prescriptions of Part III of the Constitution. On that connection an opinion is not expressed. ATDC only receives funds, as I was made to understand, indirectly by apportionment in the Union budget in the Ministry of Textiles, GoI or by some other financial arrangement according to fiscal discipline in policy to offset the expenditure suffered by second respondent ATDC in training students, with money diverted to defray overheads and costs of training and imparting skill development for the textile job market routed through the AEPC via the Union of India to promote clothing export to other countries. The Central Government through the Ministry of Textiles does not do business directly with the ATDC training centre other that mere mention of its existence in some of the papers on record, but those do not confer status of an authority in the training centre even within the widening scope of the ambit of the net of writ jurisdiction. ...