9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1315 - HC - Indian LawsAutonomous Body - EPC (Export Promotion Council) exercises public functions or not - to be treated as State or not - Seeking grant of childcare leave - challenge to Human Resource Policy implemented by CHEMEXCIL with effect from 08.01.2024 - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Court in DR JITARANI UDGATA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2022 (10) TMI 1272 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that The function performed by the Gjepc cannot be termed as public duty and any administrative or financial hold that the Central Government is deemed to have over Gjepc is far from pervasive. The Gjepc retains its autonomous character and it is the CoA which not only looks after the affairs of the Gjepc but is also empowered to make rules and regulations with regard to conditions of service appointment elections etc. Gjepc does not satisfy any of the requirements or tests laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court for establishing whether or not an authority can be deemed to be a State under Article 12. Conclusion - The functions of CHEMEXCIL are admittedly analogous to the functions of GJEPC albeit in a different industry. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative remedies available to her in law.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against CHEMEXCIL Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court examined the applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution concerning entities that are not classified as "State" under Article 12. The precedent set by the Division Bench in Dr. Jitarani Udgata vs. Union of India and Another was pivotal, where it was held that entities like the Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) do not fall within the ambit of "State" due to lack of pervasive government control. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed the Memorandum and Articles of Association of CHEMEXCIL, which were found to be in pari materia with those of GJEPC. The Court noted that the Division Bench had already addressed the issue of pervasive control and public functions in the context of GJEPC, which was similarly constituted. Key Evidence and Findings: It was undisputed that CHEMEXCIL's constitution and functions were analogous to those of GJEPC, focusing on promoting exports rather than performing State functions. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from the Division Bench's decision, noting that CHEMEXCIL's functions did not involve pervasive government control or public duties akin to State functions. The Court emphasized that the Council acts as a nodal agency between exporters and the government, without engaging in policy-making or State-like activities. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the public function aspect had not been adequately considered in the Division Bench's judgment. However, the Court found that the Division Bench had indeed considered the nature of functions exercised by GJEPC and concluded that they did not meet the public function test. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable against CHEMEXCIL, as it did not qualify as a "State" under Article 12, nor did it perform public functions that would subject it to writ jurisdiction. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The liberal interpretation that has been given to 'State' and 'other authorities' under Article 12 has been circumscribed over the years to include only those authorities that can explicitly be deemed to be under the control of the State and perform a public duty or State function." "The function of Gjepc does not pass the 'public function' test and that it cannot be said to be performing any duty that is similar to that performed by the State in its sovereign capacity." Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that entities must exhibit pervasive government control and perform public functions akin to State duties to fall under the ambit of "State" for writ jurisdiction purposes. The decision clarified that merely acting as an intermediary between private entities and the government does not suffice. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by CHEMEXCIL, dismissing the writ petitions on the grounds of non-maintainability. The petitioner was advised to seek alternative remedies available under the law.
|
