Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.03 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied
on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the
statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de
Smith states: “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does
not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be
sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common
law, custom or even contract.” We share this view. The judicial
control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the
rights of the people should not be put into watertight
compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements
of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which
must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is
found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting
that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the
contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of
the writ petition.”
The aforesaid observations have been repeated and reiterated in
numerous judgments of this Court including the judgment in Unni Krishnan
and Zee Telefilms Ltd.(supra), brought to our notice by the learned counsel
for the Appellant Mr.Parikh.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
In support of his
submission, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Pradeep
Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC
111, particularly making reference to paragraph 40 of the aforesaid
judgment. Paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
In support of this submission, he brought to our notice
certain observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in T.M.A.
Rai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481.
Learned counsel pointed out that, in the aforesaid case, this Court had
directed that the Appellate Tribunal should be set up in each district of
each State to hear appeals over the decisions taken by the Disciplinary
Bodies of even purely private educational institutions. It was emphasised
that speedy resolution of the disputes between the teachers and the
management is in the interest of all, i.e. students, management as well as
the concerned teachers. It appears that at the time when the appeal of the
appellant was heard, such a tribunal had not been set up in the State of
Punjab. The appeal filed before the Disciplinary Committee was also not
referred to the District Judge by the Disciplinary Committee.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
In our opinion, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court
in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna
Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust (supra), there can be no doubt that even a
purely private body, where the State has no control over its internal
affairs, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Provided, of course, the private body is performing public functions which
are normally expected to be performed by the State Authorities. In the
aforesaid case, this Court was also considering a situation where the
services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college
run by the Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti
Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly
observed as under :
Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993
He has made a reference to the judgments of
this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna
Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani and Ors., (1989) 2
SCC 691, Unni Krishnan J.P. and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
(1993) 1 SCC 645 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2005) 4 SCC 649 and submitted that even though the respondent School would
not fall within the definition of “State” or other
authority/instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, yet the writ petition would be maintainable as the Managing
Committee of the School is running schools throughout India and thus
performing very important public functions.
1