1959 (9) TMI 47 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 for writ of certiorari to quash termination order. Whether a writ could issue to a private limited company. Whether respondent company can be considered a body with legal authority to determine questions affecting rights of subjects.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Petition for Writ of Certiorari
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order terminating his services. He was employed as a Superintendent of Stores and was suspended due to suspicions of shortages in 1955. Although he was acquitted in a criminal case, his services were terminated on 30-6-1959. The petitioner argued that the termination was unjust and in contravention of the Officers' Service Rules of the company.

Issue 2: Writ against a Private Limited Company
The question arose whether a writ could be issued to a private limited company like the respondent-company. The High Court analyzed the nature of writs under Article 226 and their historical context. It was established that the writ of certiorari is typically issued to determine if proceedings are in conformity with the law by bodies with legal authority to act judicially. The court cited precedents from England and India to emphasize that writs are generally not issued against private bodies lacking quasi-judicial authority.

Issue 3: Legal Authority of the Respondent Company
The petitioner contended that the Government of India's substantial involvement in the respondent company should confer a controlling and administrative authority over it. However, the court held that despite government shareholding and director nominations, the respondent company remained a limited liability company without judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Precedents were cited to support the view that a writ of certiorari cannot be directed against private entities lacking such authority.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that a writ of certiorari cannot be directed against the respondent-company as it does not possess the legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. The court clarified that the involvement of the Government of India in the company did not alter its fundamental character as a private limited company. Therefore, the petition was deemed to fail, and the termination order was upheld.