RAMAKRISHNA MISSION & ANR. versus KAGO KUNYA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 28-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
 RAMAKRISHNA MISSION & ANR.
v.
KAGO KUNYA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2394 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 28, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Arts.12 and 226 – Whether appellant-
institution is an authority and hence amenable to writ jurisdiction –
Respondent (employee of the hospital run by the appellant) filed
petition u/Art. 226 challenging communication by the appellant
regarding his superannuation – Preliminary objection as regards
maintainability of the petition as the appellant or the hospital were
not a State within meaning of Art. 12 – Single Judge of High Court
held that appellants were State within meaning of Art. 12 and decided
the case on merit – Division Bench of High Court held that the
appellants fell within category of ‘other authorities’ u/Arts. 12 and
226 and hence amenable to writ jurisdiction – On appeal, held:
The character of an organization as a ‘public authority’ is dependent
on the circumstances of the case – Before an organization can be
held to discharge a public function, the functions must be of a
character that is closely related to functions which are performed
by the State in its sovereign capacity – There is no governmental
control in the functioning, administration and day to day
management of the appellants – Therefore, the hospital does not
come within the ambit of a public authority – The conditions of
service of the employees of the hospital are governed by service
rules which are framed by the Mission without the intervention of
any governmental body – Thus, contracts of purely private nature
would not be subject to writ jurisdiction – Therefore, appellants
are not amenable to writ jurisdiction as an ‘Authority’.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The hospital is a branch of the respondent
(Ramakrishna Mission) and is subject to its control. The activities
undertaken by the Mission are voluntary, charitable and non-
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 452
 452
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
profit making in nature. These activities are not closely related
to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity nor do
they partake of the nature of a public duty. [Para 19] [461-C-F]
2. The Governing Body of the Mission is constituted by
members of the Board of Trustees of Ramakrishna Math and is
vested with the power and authority to manage the organization.
The properties and funds of the Mission and its management
vest in the Governing Body. Any person can become a member
of the Mission if elected by the Governing Body. Members on
roll form the quorum of the annual general meetings. The
Managing Committee comprises of members appointed by the
Governing Body for managing the affairs of the Mission. Under
the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of
the Mission, there is no governmental control in the functioning,
administration and day to day management of the Mission. The
conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are
governed by service rules which are framed by the Mission
without the intervention of any governmental body. [Para 20]
[461-G-H; 462-A-B]
3. Even if the body discharges a public function in a wider
sense, there is no public law element involved in the
enforcement of a private contract of service. In running the
hospital, Ramakrishna Mission does not discharge a public
function. Undoubtedly, the hospital is in receipt of some element
of grant. The grants which are received by the hospital cover
only a part of the expenditure. The terms of the grant do not
indicate any form of governmental control in the management or
day to day functioning of the hospital. The nature of the work
which is rendered by Ramakrishna Mission, in general,
including in relation to its activities concerning the hospital in
question is purely voluntary. [Para 30] [467-C-F]
4.  Before an organisation can be held to discharge a public
function, the function must be of a character that is closely
related to functions which are performed by the State in its
sovereign capacity. There is nothing on record to indicate that
the hospital performs functions which are akin to those solely
performed by State authorities. Medical services are provided
by private as well as State entities. The character of the
 RAMAKRISHNA MISSION  v.  KAGO KUNYA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
organisation as a public authority is dependent on the
circumstances of the case. In setting up the hospital, t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.