2010 (3) TMI 1086 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of termination of services.
2. Nature of the Centre as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
3. Amenability of the Centre to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Imposition of personal costs on Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Termination of Services:
The Centre for Policy Research (Centre) terminated the services of respondent No.1 on 16.8.2000. Respondent No.1 challenged this in WP (C) No.5928/2000, and the learned single Judge granted an interim stay on termination. The writ petition was decided on 18.1.2002, quashing the termination and imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 against Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker. The Centre accepted the quashing of the termination but constituted an Inquiry Committee to investigate respondent No.1's conduct, which led to further legal challenges.

2. Nature of the Centre as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India:
The learned single Judge made observations about the Centre being a 'state' within the meaning of "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, raising doubts. However, the counsel for respondent No.1 did not press this issue, and the Court agreed that these observations were unsustainable and set them aside.

3. Amenability of the Centre to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The main issue debated was whether the Centre was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court noted that the Centre's functions, including educational activities and receiving government grants, brought it within the ambit of public duty. The Centre's involvement in higher education, agreements with Manipal Academy of Higher Education, and exemptions under the Income Tax Act as an educational institution were significant factors. The Court emphasized that the Centre's activities, supported by government aid and oversight, made it amenable to judicial scrutiny under Article 226, especially in employment matters.

4. Imposition of Personal Costs on Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker:
The imposition of personal costs on Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker was upheld. The Court found that his actions warranted such costs, and there was no error in the learned single Judge's decision. The costs had not been paid despite no stay being granted.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, except for setting aside the observations related to Article 12. The Centre was held amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the imposition of personal costs on Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker was upheld. The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 each.