Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether respondent No.3(AIL) after having been taken over by a private corporate entity could have been subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court: Held: In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Government of India having transferred its 100% share to a private limited company-T, ceased to have any administrative control or deep pervasive control over the private entity and hence, the company after its disinvestment could not have been treated to be a State anymore after having taken over by the private company – Thus, unquestionably, the respondent No.3(AIL) after its disinvestment ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India – Once the respondent No.3(AIL) ceased to be covered by the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it could not have been subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – The respondent No.3(AIL), the erstwhile Government run airline having been taken over by the private company-T, unquestionably, is not performing any public duty inasmuch as it has taken over the Government company Air India Limited for the purpose of commercial operations, plain and simple, and thus no writ petition is maintainable against respondent No.3(AIL). [Paras 32, 33 and 37]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether the appellants herein could have been non-suited on account of the fact that during pendency of their writ petitions, the nature of the employer changed from a Government entity to a private entity: Held: The respondent No.3(AIL)-employer was a government entity on the date of filing of the writ petitions, which came to be decided after a significant delay by which time, the company had been disinvested and taken over by a private player – Since, respondent No.3 employer had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity – The Division Bench of the High Court has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been non-suited in the case – It is only that the appellants would have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy – Thus, the question is decided against the appellants. [Para 38] Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether the delay in disposal of the writ petition could be treated a valid ground to sustain the claim of the appellants even against the private entity: Held: The delay in disposal of the writ petitions could not have been a ground to continue with and maintain the writ petitions – Because the forum that is the High Court where the writ petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period – Hence, the question is also decided against the appellants. [Para 39]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.