Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATISH KUMAR SINGH versus SAEE BIOTIC LTD. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satish Kumar Singh v. Saee Biotic Ltd. & Others - WRIT - A No. 20431 of 2000 [2000] RD-AH 10 (5 May 2000)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

[Court No.4]

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20431 of 2000

Satish Kumar Singh ...........................................Petitioner

                                               Vs.

Sai Bio-Tech Limited,  through its Director Mr. Deepak

Parti  and others ..............................................Respondents.

____________    

Hon. R.K.Agrawal, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner seeks writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30th March, 2000, passed by Sia Biotech Limited terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31st March, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the impugned order] a copy whereof is filed as annexure 10 to the writ petition.

According to the petitioner he was appointed as Divisional Manager in Grade J.M.C. -II w.e.f. 1.8.1997 by the President, Sai BioTech Limited a copy of which is filed as annexure 2 to the writ petition. Sai Bio-Tech Limited, has been arrayed as respondents through its Director, President and Vice President consecutively in the array of the parties of this petition,

The petitioner has also filed memorandum and Article of Association of Sai BioTech as annexure 6 to the writ petition. From the perusal of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sai Bio-Tech Limited it is seen that the said Company has been incorporated as a Public Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act1956 and its shares are being held by the public. It is not discharging any statutory obligations and functions. The services of the petitioner has been terminated by the said Company. It is well settled that a writ cannot be issued against any private person who is not discharging any statutory obligations.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others etc. reported in (1999) 1 UPLBEC 296, for the preposition that the writ is maintainable against the private company. In the aforesaid case the Hon. Supreme Court while holding that the writ petition filed against the U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, found as a fact that the affairs of the U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited were controlled by the State Government through its functions as a co-operative society and it is certainly an extended arm of the State and thus an instrumentality of the State or authority as mentioned under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision of Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported (199) 2 UPLBEC 995 wherein this Court had held that the a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, and the Rules made thereunder may be a private body but it certainly caters to the needs of public and the employees being the arm of the society cannot be dealt with by the society in an arbitrary manner. Absence of arbitrariness in action by bodies performing public function is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution and violation of Article 14 by public bodies will give rise to a cause of action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Haidar Hussain learned Standing Counsel who has been requested by the Court to assist the Court, has relied upon the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 193367 of 2000, Workmen of Pesico India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and others, decided on 24.4.2000, wherein this Court had held that admittedly the respondent company is a purely private body and is not instrumentality of the State hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that the respondents are purely private company including their officials. They are not performing any public duty nor their affairs are controlled by the State. Thus, they do not fall within the meaning of the word termed as State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (supra) are controlled by the State government and it is certainly an extended arm of the State. In the present case, it is not established that the respondent-company is either controlled by the State or is an extended arm.

Thus, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed in limine as not maintainable.

DT: 5.5.2000.

Iss/-  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.