Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006
Bholanath Roy And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 9 November, 1995
10. The reference is made to a Single Bench
Judgment of Calcutta High Court in Bholanath
Roy and others vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 502 wherein it was held
that milk union is not a 'State' and writ petition is
not maintainable. It is reiterated that milk unions
are backbone of the federation and if petition is
not maintainable against the union, it is equally
not maintainable against the federation.
Ramesh Ahluwalia vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 September, 2012
The judgment of Supreme Court
in Ramesh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab &
Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 331 is referred
to submit that in view of judgments of the
7
Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, reported
in (2002) 5 SCC 111 and judgment of Ajay Hasia
vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, reported in (1981)
1 SCC 722, if control is merely regulatory whether
under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to
make the body a "State".
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
In
our view, such domination and control is pervasive
in nature and therefore, federation is certainly
amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 12
of the Constitution as per the law laid down in the
majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra). A
holistic view of the object, functioning of the
federation makes it clear that State Government
has pervasive control on the federation. Merely
because milk union is held to be not a 'State' by
15
this Court will not take Federation out of the
purview of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
In Para 8, the above Special Bench considered
the litmus test laid down by the Supreme court in
the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) in order to
ascertain whether the body is financially,
functionally and administratively dominated by or
under the control of the Government. After
considering the main 'object' of the federation, the
Special Bench opined that the purpose and object
is for conducting various programmes of
12
manufacture, collection, processing, distributing,
sale of milk and milk products for the economic
development of farmers and for developing and
safeguarding the milk business, milk producing
animals and for economic development of groups
engaged in milk production. Justice A. K. Patnaik
(as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Special
Bench recorded as under:
Supriyo Basu And Ors vs West Bengal Housing Board And Ors on 5 August, 2005
In
this view of the finding, the judgment of Supriyo
Basu (supra) is of no help to the federation for the
simple reason that in the said case, the Apex
Court has not tested the action/order on the anvil
of fundamental rights or on the aspects of fairness
and non-arbitrariness etc. Thus, preliminary
objection raised by federation is overruled.
S.S. Rana vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies & ... on 25 April, 2006
12. The last reliance is on the judgment of
Supreme Court in S. S. Rana vs. Registrar,
Cooperative Society & Anr., reported in (2006)
11 SCC 634. It is canvassed that merely because
State has power to nominate the members in the
Board of Directors, it cannot be said that State
8
exercised functional control over the affairs of the
society in the sense that majority directors are
nominated by the State. In view of these
judgments, it is prayed that the petition was liable
to be dismissed solely on the question of
maintainability.
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs M.P. Dugdha Mahasangh Sahkari Maryadit ... on 22 June, 1993
20. Interestingly, the similar question cropped up
before the MP High Court and the question of
maintainability of petition was referred to a Full
Bench of the High Court. The Full Bench in
Dinesh Kr Sharma vs. M.P. Dugdh Mahasangh
Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, reported in 1993
MPLJ 786 opined that federation is not a 'State'
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. The correctness of this decision was
again referred to a 5 judges' Special Bench of the
High Court.