Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (3.28 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Praga Tools Corporation vs Shri C. A. Imanual & Ors on 19 February, 1969
In The Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors. 11, as
already discussed above, this Court held that the action challenged did
11
(1969) 1 SCC 585
36
not have public element and writ of mandamus could not be issued as
the action was essentially of a private character. That was a case
where the concerned employee was seeking reinstatement to an office.
K. Krishnamacharayulu & Ors vs Sri Venkateswara Hindu College Of ... on 21 February, 1997
There is
absence of public element as has been stated in V.R.
Rudani and others (supra) and Sri Venkateswara
Hindu College of Engineering and another (supra). It
also does not discharge duties having a positive
application of public nature. It carries on voluntary
activities which many a non-governmental organizations
perform. The said activities cannot be stated to be
remotely connected with the activities of the State. On a
scrutiny of the constitution and by-laws, it is difficult to
hold that the respondent-society has obligation to
discharge certain activities which are statutory or of public
character. The concept of public duty cannot be
construed in a vacuum.
G. Bassi Reddy vs International Crops Research Instt. & ... on 14 February, 2003
34) In G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute & Anr.7,
the Court was concerned with the nature of function performed by a
research institute. The Court was to examine if the function performed
6
(1997) 3 SCC 571
7
(2003) 4 SCC 225
29
by such research institute would be public function or public duty.
Answering the question in the negative in the said case, the Court made
the following pertinent observations:
Sohan Lal vs The Union Of India on 7 March, 1957
"...an application for mandamus will not lie for an
order of reinstatement to an office which is
essentially of a private character nor can such an
application be maintained to secure performance of
obligations owed by a company towards its workmen
or to resolve any private dispute. (See Sohan Lal v.
Union of India, 1957 SCR 738)."
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
34. As has been held in the case of Federal Bank Ltd.
(supra), solely because a private company carries on
banking business, it cannot be said that it would be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has
opined that the provisions of Banking Regulation Act and
other statutes have the regulatory measure to play. The
activities undertaken by the respondent-society, a
non-governmental organization, do not actually partake
the nature of public duty or state actions.
Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005
36) In Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors.9, the Court clarified that
though writ can be issued against any private body or person, the scope
of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. It is the nature of
duty performed by such person/body which is the determinative factor
as the Court is to enforce the said duty and the identity of authority
against whom the right is sought is not relevant. Such duty, the Court
clarified, can either be statutory or even otherwise, but, there has to be
public law element in the action of that body.