Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1960 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of the petition - Ramakrishna Mission is hospital or State within the meaning of Article 12 - Appellants fall within the description of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 or not - grant of extension of service for two years beyond the date of superannuation - whether the functions performed by the hospital are public functions, on the basis of which a writ of mandamus can lie Under Article 226 of the Constitution? HELD THAT:- This Court came to the conclusion that the service conditions of the academic staff do not partake of a private character, but are governed by a right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. A breach of the duty, it was held, would be amenable to the remedy of a writ of mandamus. While the Court recognized that "the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting rights of people cannot be put into watertight compartments", it laid down two exceptions where the remedy of mandamus would not be available - In VST INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION AND ANR. ETC. [2000 (12) TMI 913 - SUPREME COURT], a two judge Bench of this Court held that a mere violation of the conditions of service will not provide a valid basis for the exercise of the writ jurisdiction Under Article 226, in a situation where the activity does not have the features of a public duty. 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 - The mere fact that land had been provided on a concessional basis to the hospital would not by itself result in the conclusion that the hospital performs a public function. In the present case, the absence of state control in the management of the hospital has a significant bearing on our coming to the conclusion that the hospital does not come within the ambit of a public authority. The contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions. The only exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a statutory provision - It is of relevance to note that the Act was enacted to provide for the Regulation and registration of clinical establishments with a view to prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services. The Act, inter alia, stipulates conditions to be satisfied by clinical establishments for registration. However, the Act does not govern contracts of service entered into by the Hospital with respect to its employees. These fall within the ambit of purely private contracts, against which writ jurisdiction cannot lie. The sanctity of this distinction must be preserved. The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants are amenable to the writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution as an authority within the meaning of the Article - neither the Ramakrishna Mission, nor the hospital would constitute an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution - Appeal allowed.
|