LexGURCHARAN SINGH versus REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B GURCHARAN SINGH V. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 (ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: C Articles 12 and 226-"State "-Co-operative Society-Employee of- Termination of services of-Challenged in writ petition before High Court- Writ petition dismissed by High Court for lack of jurisdiction as in its view Co-operative Society was not State within the meaning of Article 12-Held, it appears that the basic factual aspects were not placed before the High Court D to determine the question whether the respondent-Society was "State" within the meaning of Article 12-It would be appropriate for the High Court to examine the question regarding the maintainability in the background of what has been stated in Pradeep Kumar's case*-Writ petition restored to jile- High Court to decide the question of maintainability of the writ petition as well as the merits. E F *Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., (2002] 5 SCC lll, followed. Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors., (1975] I SCC 485, stands overruled. Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., [ 1981] l SCC 722, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3499 of2005. G From the Judgment and Order dated 12. I 0.98 of the Himachal Pradesh H High Court at Shimla in C.R. No. 9 of 1998. Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, R. Krishnaamorthi and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant. 230 , • GURCHARAN SINGH r. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, HIMACHAL PRADESH 23 J Naresh K. Sharma and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Respondents. A The following Order of the Court was delivered : The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Review No. 9 of 1998. By the impugned order, the earlier order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1844 of B 1995 was recalled and it was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. This view was taken primarily on the ground that the respondent was a Cooperative Society and was, therefore, not covered within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). Reliance for this purpose was placed on two Division C Bench judgments of the High Court holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the review was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as being not maintainable. No view was expressed on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with reference to a seven D Judges Bench judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., (2002] 5 SCC 111 that the writ petition is maintainable. By the said judgment, the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Ors., [1975] 1 SCC 485 was overruled, The Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., [1981] I SCC 722 E was explained and multiple tests for determining whether a particular Corporation or Body can be held to be included within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, were laid down. It was inter- alia held as follows: "The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated F in Ajay Hasia 's ca~e (supra) are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be - whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively G dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State." H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A It appears that the basic factual aspects were not placed before the High Court to determine the question whether the respondent-Society was "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid, we feel it would be appropriate for the High Court to examine the question regarding the maintainability in the ba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.