2022 (5) TMI 1657 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to election notices issued by the respondent nos.1 2, the election officers appointed for conducting elections for the management committee of the respondent no.4/All India Motor Transport Congress for the term 2022-24. It is contended that merely because the petitioner is the Managing Director of a company, which is a member of the respondent no.4, it would not entitle him to challenge the election thereof and that too, without placing on record any resolution to this effect by M/s Karnataka Freight Movers Private Limited, of which he is a Managing Director. HELD THAT - It is found that even though there can be no dispute to the settled legal position that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can in certain circumstances lie against a private body as well, the real test, however, in such cases is whether the said private body is discharging any public functions or not. In the present case, once it is an admitted position that the respondent no. 4 is a private company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, the question that really needs to be determined is whether the respondent no.4 can be said to be discharging any public function, so as to make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. When the factual position that the respondent no.4 is representing the interests of only 6500 members/transporters, is considered with reference to the population of the country, and the number of transporters engaged in this industry, it clearly emerges that the respondent no.4 represents only the interests of a small number of transporters, which is not sufficient enough to categorize the said company as a body discharging any public function. The decisions in Ramesh Ahluwalia 2012 (9) TMI 1135 - SUPREME COURT , ROYCHAN ABRAHAM VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2019 (2) TMI 2110 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and C. DHANABAL; S. SANKAR; D. JOSEPH MANOHARAN VERSUS THE CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, NEW DELHI AND ORS. 2018 (9) TMI 2148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT relied upon by the petitioners, reiterate the well settled principle that a writ petition would be maintainable against a private party if it discharges a public function. Although the respondent no.4 has been established to cater to the interests of transporters and the transport industry, it represents a very small faction of transporters in the country. The respondent no. 4 is clearly not discharging any public functions and therefore these decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the conclusion that no writ petition is maintainable against the respondent no. 4, it being a private party not discharging any public function, it is not deemed necessary to examine the respondent s objections that the petitioner has no locus to approach this Court or to assail the election process of respondent no. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election notices issued by respondent nos.1 & 2.
2. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the election process.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition against respondent no.4, a private company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the election notices issued by respondent nos.1 & 2:
The petitioner challenged the election notices dated 28.02.2022 and 18.04.2022 issued by respondent nos.1 & 2, who were appointed as Election Officers for conducting elections for the management committee of respondent no.4/All India Motor Transport Congress for the term 2022-24. The petitioner argued that these notices were not in accordance with the Articles of Association of respondent no.4 and sought a direction for holding the elections after 01.07.2022.

2. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the election process:
The respondents contended that the petitioner, not being a member of respondent no.4, lacked the locus standi to approach the Court. They argued that the petitioner, as the Managing Director of a company that is a member of respondent no.4, could not challenge the election without a resolution from Karnataka Freight Movers Private Limited. The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to be a lifetime member of respondent no.4 and a member of its 'bye-laws committee.'

3. Maintainability of the writ petition against respondent no.4, a private company:
The core issue was whether respondent no.4, a private company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, was discharging any public functions, making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that respondent no.4, being a charitable company with up to 50,000 members, played a pivotal role in the motor transportation fraternity and thus discharged public functions. The respondents countered that respondent no.4 represented only a small number of transporters and was not involved in discharging any public functions.

The Court referred to the Memorandum of Association of respondent no.4, which stated that its main objectives were to represent the motor transport fraternity, facilitate growth and development of the motor transport sector, and protect and promote the interests of persons engaged in the business of motor transport. However, the Court noted that respondent no.4 represented only 6500 members out of over two lakh transporters in the country. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 670, which emphasized that the primary focus should be on the nature of functions being carried out by the body/organization to determine the maintainability of a writ petition. The Court concluded that respondent no.4 was not discharging any public functions and thus was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no writ petition was maintainable against respondent no.4 as it was a private party not discharging any public function. The Court did not find it necessary to examine the respondent's objections regarding the petitioner's locus standi. The Court also stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving it open for the petitioner to seek legal recourse as permissible in law.