Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
"5. In the present case, the petitioner seeks
enforcement of personal contractual rights as an
employee. These personal contractual rights are a
challenge to his compulsory retirement by the
respondent no.1. No welfare legislations or any
important statutory provisions are said to be
violated by the respondent no.1, and of which
enforcement is sought by the petitioner. Rules of
respondent no.1 for its employees are not statutory
rules and hence would thus be in the nature of
contractual rules. Therefore, the enforcement of
rights by the petitioner are purely private rights
LPA 626/2013 Page 8 of 9
against a private body/respondent no.1 and no
statutory rules are being enforced. I need not cite
the entire catena of case law on the legal aspects
which I have stated above and it would be suffice to
refer to three judgments of the Supreme Court in
the cases of Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan &
Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 657, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs.
Sagar Thomas & Ors. 2003 (10) SCC 733 and
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd,
Sultanpur, U.P Vs. Satrughan Nishad & Ors. 2003
(8) SCC 639. These judgments hold that no doubt
there is no bar in entertaining a writ against a body
which is not „State‟ or „instrumentality of State‟,
but, the function or duty which that body exercises
and is challenged in a petition under Article 226
has to be a public duty/ function or have a public
law element or is a statutory duty and issues with
employees are not public functions for entertaining
a writ petition with respect thereto. There is no
public law/function element in a contractual
appointment matter.
Jatya Pal Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2013
9. Recently the Supreme Court in the case reported as Jatya
Pal Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2013 (6) SCC
452 dealing with 10 writ petitions filed by the former employees
of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has held as under:
Dwarkanath, Hindu Undivided Family vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 29 March, 1965
50. Dr. Chauhan had also relied on Binny Ltd. wherein
this Court reiterated the observations made by this Court
in Dwarkanath vs. ITO.
Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005
"5. In the present case, the petitioner seeks
enforcement of personal contractual rights as an
employee. These personal contractual rights are a
challenge to his compulsory retirement by the
respondent no.1. No welfare legislations or any
important statutory provisions are said to be
violated by the respondent no.1, and of which
enforcement is sought by the petitioner. Rules of
respondent no.1 for its employees are not statutory
rules and hence would thus be in the nature of
contractual rules. Therefore, the enforcement of
rights by the petitioner are purely private rights
LPA 626/2013 Page 8 of 9
against a private body/respondent no.1 and no
statutory rules are being enforced. I need not cite
the entire catena of case law on the legal aspects
which I have stated above and it would be suffice to
refer to three judgments of the Supreme Court in
the cases of Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan &
Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 657, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs.
Sagar Thomas & Ors. 2003 (10) SCC 733 and
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd,
Sultanpur, U.P Vs. Satrughan Nishad & Ors. 2003
(8) SCC 639. These judgments hold that no doubt
there is no bar in entertaining a writ against a body
which is not „State‟ or „instrumentality of State‟,
but, the function or duty which that body exercises
and is challenged in a petition under Article 226
has to be a public duty/ function or have a public
law element or is a statutory duty and issues with
employees are not public functions for entertaining
a writ petition with respect thereto. There is no
public law/function element in a contractual
appointment matter.
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini ... vs Satrughan Nishad And Others on 8 October, 2003
"5. In the present case, the petitioner seeks
enforcement of personal contractual rights as an
employee. These personal contractual rights are a
challenge to his compulsory retirement by the
respondent no.1. No welfare legislations or any
important statutory provisions are said to be
violated by the respondent no.1, and of which
enforcement is sought by the petitioner. Rules of
respondent no.1 for its employees are not statutory
rules and hence would thus be in the nature of
contractual rules. Therefore, the enforcement of
rights by the petitioner are purely private rights
LPA 626/2013 Page 8 of 9
against a private body/respondent no.1 and no
statutory rules are being enforced. I need not cite
the entire catena of case law on the legal aspects
which I have stated above and it would be suffice to
refer to three judgments of the Supreme Court in
the cases of Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan &
Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 657, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs.
Sagar Thomas & Ors. 2003 (10) SCC 733 and
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd,
Sultanpur, U.P Vs. Satrughan Nishad & Ors. 2003
(8) SCC 639. These judgments hold that no doubt
there is no bar in entertaining a writ against a body
which is not „State‟ or „instrumentality of State‟,
but, the function or duty which that body exercises
and is challenged in a petition under Article 226
has to be a public duty/ function or have a public
law element or is a statutory duty and issues with
employees are not public functions for entertaining
a writ petition with respect thereto. There is no
public law/function element in a contractual
appointment matter.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
6. The issue whether an organization is a state or its agency or
instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, to make a writ petition maintainable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has come up for
consideration before the Supreme Court and this Court, on many
LPA 626/2013 Page 2 of 9
occasions. One of the earliest judgment of the Supreme Court is
reported as 1979 (3) SCC 489 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authroity of India wherein the Supreme
Court has propounded tests for determining, as to when the
corporation will be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the
Government.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
"40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests
formulated in Ajay Hasia (supra) are not a rigid set of
principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it
mast ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the
meaning of Article 12.