9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... term 2022-24. The respondent no.4 is a private company, which had been established to cater to the needs and interests of the transporters across India. 3. An election notice for conducting elections for the post of members of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4/All India Motor Transport Congress for the term, 2021-2023 was issued on 21.10.2021 by the respondent no.1 who was appointed as the Chief Election Officer by the respondent no.4. The elections could, however, not take place in 2021 and were therefore, deferred for the term, i.e., 2022-2024. 4. On 28.02.2022, upon an election notice being issued by the respondent nos.1 2, the petitioner learnt that the respondent no.2 had also been appointed as an Election Officer to conduct the elections for the Management Committee of the respondent no.4 company. It was stipulated in the said election notice that on account of delay in the election process, the term of the Management Committee would stand revised from the year 2021-23 to 2022-24. 5. Aggrieved by the issuance of the election notice, the petitioner made representations to the respondent nos.1 2 on 24.03.2022 which was followed by a representation to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that the respondent no.4 is a charitable company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, which can, as per the Articles of Association, have upto 50,000 members, shows that it plays a pivotal role in the motor transportation fraternity. By drawing my attention to the letter head of the respondent no.4, he contends that the respondent no.4 describes itself as the Apex body of the motor transport fraternity of India, whose primary aim is to facilitate the growth and development of the motor transport sector. He, therefore, contends that the respondent no.4, despite being a private party, is indeed discharging important public functions and would therefore, be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In support of his plea that a writ petition would be maintainable against a private entity as well, learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 361, a decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Roychan Abraham Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2019) SCC Online All 3935 and on a decision of the Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers/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. 11. At this stage, a reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 670, wherein the Apex Court held that in order to determine the maintainability of a writ petition, the primary focus of the Court should be to examine the nature of functions being carried out by the body/organization. The relevant observations of the Apex Court read as under: 47. It is clear from the reading of the impugned judgment that 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 jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg., (1997) 3 SCC 571 : 1997 SCC (L S) 841] It also does not discharge duties having a positive application of public nature. It carries on voluntary activities which many a non-governmental organisations perform. The said activities cannot be stated to be remotely connected with the activities of the State. On a scrutiny of the Constitution and bye-laws, it is difficult to hold that the respondent Society has obligation to discharge certain activities which are statutory or of public character. The concept of public duty cannot be construed in a vacuum. A private society, in certain cases, may be amenable to the writ jurisdiction if the writ court is satisfied that it is necessary to compel such society or association to enforce any statutory obligation or such obligations of public nature casting positive public obligation upon it. 36. As we perceive, the only object of ICID is for promoting the development and application of certain aspects, which have been voluntarily undertaken but the said activities cannot be said that ICID carries on public duties to make itself amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 48. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SAT has a role which extends beyond the territorial boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit people from all over the world. While the Indian public may be the beneficiary of the activities of the Institute, it certainly cannot be said that ICRISAT owes a duty to the Indian public to provide research and training facilities. In Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.V. Imanual [(1969) 1 SCC 585 : AIR 1969 SC 1306] this Court construed Article 226 to hold that the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest . The Court also held that (SCC p. 589, para 6) [A]n application for mandamus will not lie for an order of reinstatement to an office which is essentially of a private character nor can such an application be maintained to secure performance of obligations owed by a company towards its workmen or to resolve any private dispute. (See Sohan Lal v. Union of India [AIR 1957 SC 529 : 1957 SCR 738] .) (emphasis supplied) 13. The common thread which runs through these decisions of the Apex Court is that it is only when a private body is disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
