2014 (12) TMI 1286 - SC - Indian Laws

Discharging any public function or public duty - Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents herein - Held that - In the present case, since ICID is not funded by the Government nor it is discharging any function under any statute, the only question is as to whether it is discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature. It is clear from the reading of the impugned judgment, the High Court was fully conscious of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, cognizance whereof is duly taken by the High Court. Applying the test in the case at hand, namely that of ICID, the High Court opined that it was not discharging any public function or public duty, which would make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. We are in agreement with the aforesaid analysis by the High Court and it answers all the arguments raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel argued that once the society is registered in India it cannot be treated as international body. This argument is hardly of any relevance in determining the character of ICID. The focus has to be on the function discharged by ICID, namely, whether it is discharging any public duties. Though much mileage was sought to be drawn from the function incorporated in the MOA of ICID, namely, to encourage progress in design, construction, maintenance and operation of large and small irrigation works and canals etc., that by itself would not make it a public duty cast on ICID. We cannot lose sight of the fact that ICID is a private body which has no State funding. Further, no liability under any statute is cast upon ICID to discharge the aforesaid function. The High Court is right in its observation that even when object of ICID is to promote the development and application of certain aspects, the same are voluntarily undertaken and there is no obligation to discharge certain activities which are statutory or of public character. There are three exceptions to this rule, namely (i) when the employee is a public servant working under the Union of India or State; (ii) when such an employee is employed by an authority/body which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) when such an employee is workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raises a dispute regarding his termination by invoking the machinery under the said Act. In the first two cases, the employment ceases to have private law character and status to such an employment is attached. In the third category of cases, it is the Industrial Disputes Act which confers jurisdiction on the labour court/industrial tribunal to grant reinstatement in case termination is found to be illegal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against ICID.
2. Whether ICID qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. Whether ICID performs public functions or public duties making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Detailed Analysis:

Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226:
The primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against ICID. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that ICID is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not perform public functions or duties to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that ICID performs public duties and should be subject to judicial review under Article 226.

ICID as a 'State' under Article 12:
The High Court examined the Constitution and bye-laws of ICID and concluded that ICID is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court noted that ICID is a non-governmental organization with no pervasive governmental control, financial, functional, or administrative. The High Court applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, concluding that ICID does not qualify as an instrumentality or agency of the State. The appellant conceded this point during the hearing before the Supreme Court.

Public Functions or Public Duties:
The appellant argued that ICID performs public duties, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court, however, found that ICID's functions, such as research, data collection, and promoting irrigation techniques, do not amount to public duties or functions similar to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. The activities of ICID were deemed voluntary and not intrinsically public in nature.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, stating that ICID's functions are not akin to State functions and do not involve a public law element. The Court emphasized that even if a body performs public duties, not all its decisions are subject to judicial review. Only those decisions with a public element can be reviewed under writ jurisdiction.

The Court further clarified that ICID is a private body with no State funding or statutory obligations to discharge public functions. Therefore, it does not fall within the categories of private bodies amenable to writ jurisdiction as outlined in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that ICID is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not perform public duties making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments.