LexCHAIN SINGH versus MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B CHAIN SINGH v. MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 [SHIVARAJ V. PATlL AND B.N. SRIKrJSHNA, JJ.] Constitution of India, I950 : Articles 12 and 226-'State '-Determination' of-Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board-Amenability to writ jurisdiction-Employees as well as C tenants of the shops of the Shrine Board filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming various reliefs-High Court, relying on the ratio in Bhuri Nath 's case, held that the Board was not 'State' within the meaning of 1rt. I 2 and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction-Correctness of-Held: Bhuri Nath 's cas~ not concerned with the issue as to whether the sweep of D Art. 226 could extend to the Shrine Board-The sweep of Art. I2 is much wider-It could be exercised against "any person or authority" including, in appropriate cases, "any Government"-High Court directed to cunsider the maintainability of the writ petitions under Art. 226 by applying the principles and tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas' case-Hence, E F G matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration-The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, S. 20. The employees as well as the tenants of the respondent-Board filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming various reliefs. The High Court relying on the ratio in Bhuri Nath's case (1997) 2 SCC 745 held that respondent-Board was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as it was· not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 .of the Constitution. Hence the appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : J. Bhuri Nath was not concerned with the issue as to whether the sweep of Article 226 could extend to the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board. The sweep of Article 226 is much wider. It can be exercised against "any person or authority" including, in appropriate cases, "any Government". (809-C, D; 809-E, F] H Bhuri Nath v. State of J & K, [1997) 2 SCC 745, held inapplicable. 798 CHAIN SINGH v. MAT A V AISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD 799 Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) A 5 SCC 111; Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, (1975] 1 SCC 485; Gullapalli Nagesward v. A.P. SRTC, (1959) Supp. 1 SCR 319; Union of India v. Sudhansu Mazumdar, [1971) 3 SCC 265; Ajay Rasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR (1981) SC 487 and Ramanna v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR (1979) SC 1628, relied on. B Kiran Babu Y. Govt. of A.P., AIR (1986) AP 275 and Hardwari Lal v. G.D. Tapase, AIR (1982) P & H 439, referred to. 2. No view is expressed on the apprehension voiced by the appellants that Section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 bars civil suits and adjudications under labour laws. The High Court shall, therefore, first consider the maintainability of the c writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia by examining whether the Shrine Board is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, by applying the p~inciples and tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas' case. [811-A, B, C] D Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, [2002) 5 sec 111, referred to. 3. The High Court shall also consider whether any alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners by way of civil suit or industrial adjudication. It shall be open to the High Court to take an appropriate decision thereupon, including the relegation of the parties to the appropriate remedy, if the High Court upon interpretation of the provision of Section 20 of the 1988 Act comes to the conclusion that such alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners before it. [811-C, DJ 4. In case the High Court takes the view that the writ petitions are tenable, and that no other equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners, then the High Court shall decide the writ petitions on their merits. (811-D, .El CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4596of1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.99 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in O.W.P. No. 523 of 1995. WITH E F G H 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A C.A. Nos. 4597-4598 of 1999 and 6334 of 2004. B c D E F G M.L. Verma, S.S. Lehar, Ranjit Kumar, Satya Mitra, P.D. Sharma and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Appellants. P.P. Rao and Upinder K. Jalali, Manu Nair, Rohit Kapoor, Dhruv Dewan for Mis. Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Anish Suhrawardy and Amit Anand for the Respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.