LexK. K. SAKSENA versus INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 14 S.C.R. 892 . K. K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11499 of 2014) DECEMBER 18, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] Constitution of India : c Aits. 12 and 2.26-Scope of- Writ petition u/Ait. 226- Against respondent-Commission - Challenging the order terminating the services of the appellant"employee - Whether maintainable - High Couit held that it was not maintainable because the respondent-Corporation was not D a 'State' u/Ait. 12 and also because the actions of the respondent were not amenable to judicial review- On appeal, held: Even if a person or authority is a 'State'within meaning of Ait. 12, a writ petition would not lie to enforce private law rights- If a person or authority does not come within the sweep E of Ait. 12, but is performing public duty, writ petition lies - However, such private body should either run substantially on State funding or discharge public duty/positive obligation of public nature or is under liability to discharge any function under any statute to compel it to perform such a statutory F . function - Even if a body performing public duty is amenable . · to writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review, but only those which have public e1ement therein - Contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review - The G respondent-Commission in the present case is not funded by the Government- The functions and duties of respondent- Commission also do not come within the meaning of 'public · functions' and 'public duties' to bring the Commission within the ambit of expression 'other authority' in Ait. 226 - Even H otherwise the impugned action of terminating the services of 892 K. K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 893 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE the appellant does not involve public Jaw element and no A 'public Jaw rights' have accrued in favour of the appellant- · Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable - Service Law- Termination of service. Arts. 12 and 226 - Power under Art. 226 - Scope of- He/d: The power of High Court u/Art. 226 is not limited to the B authority which is qualified to be a 'State' u!Art. 12- The term 'authority' in Art. 226 has a wider meaning than the same vety term used in Art. 12- The power is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights, but also 'for any other purpose'. Words and Phrases - 'Authority' - Connotation of, in C the context of Arts. 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India - Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As per the definition contained in Arti~le D 12 of the Constitution the 'State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each State as well as "all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India". If such an autht>,rity E violates the furidamental right or other legal rights of any perso_n or citizen (as the case may be), writ petition cary be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and seeking appropriate direction, order or writ. [Para 30] F [916-B-C; 916-D-E] 2.1 However, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of the High Court is not limited to the Government or authority which qualifies to be a 'State' under Article 12. Power is extended to issue directions, orders or writs G "to any person or authority". Again, this power of issuing directions, orders or writs is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill, but also 'for any other purpose'. Thus, power of the High Court takes H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A within its sweep more "authorities" than stipulated in B · Article 12 and the subject matter which can be dealt with under this Article is also wider in scope. [Para 30) [916-E-G] Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691 : 1989 (2) SCR 697 ·relied on. 2.2 If a person or authority is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a C writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. However, even in such cases writ would not lie to enforce private law rights. Reason is that private law is that part of a legal sys
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.