Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)
Reena Panta vs Union Of India And Others on 11 September, 2023 cites

Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005

40. Para 11 of the judgment in Binny [Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 881] is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 665-66) "11. Judicial review is designed to prevent the cases of abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. However, under our Constitution, Article 226 is couched in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority. However, such private authority must be discharging a public function and that the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a public function. The role of the State expanded enormously and attempts have been made to create various agencies to perform the governmental functions. Several corporations and companies have also been formed by the Government to run industries and to carry on trading activities. These have come to be known as public sector undertakings. However, in the interpretation given to Article 12 of the Constitution, this Court took the view that many of 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 06:33:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118251 CWP-6115-2019 (O&M) -12- 2023:PHHC:118251 these companies and corporations could come within the sweep of Article 12 of the Constitution. At the same time, there are private bodies also which may be discharging public functions. It is difficult to draw a line between public functions and private functions when it is being discharged by a purely private authority. A body is performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 320 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

St. Marys Education Society vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava on 24 August, 2022

9. The petitioner is assailing order dated 27.02.2019 whereby petitioner has been terminated during probation period. Law enunciated by 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 06:33:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118251 CWP-6115-2019 (O&M) -16- 2023:PHHC:118251 Hon'ble Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case and as per said judgment, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 84 - Full Document

Shaheeda Begum vs Principal, Army School And Anr. on 1 September, 2005

2. Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection of maintainability. He submits that respondent No.2 is a society registered under Society Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No.2 does not fall within definition of State or its Instrumentality as contemplated under Article 12 of Constitution of India. The respondent-Society is neither getting financial aid from the State nor directly or indirectly controlled or managed by the Government. A Division Bench of this Court in Rajni Jaiswal vs. School Managing Committee, Army School, Ferozepur Cantt and another, 2007 SCC Online P&H 1472 and Andhra Pradesh High 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 06:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118251 CWP-6115-2019 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:118251 Court in Shaheeda Begum vs. Principal Army School Secunderaband and another, 2005 SCC OnLine AP 706 have held that Army Public School run by Army Welfare Society are not instrumentality of State in terms of Article 12 of Constitution of India, thus, writ petition is not maintainable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next