Constitution of India: Arts.12 and 226 – Whether appellantinstitution 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-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 organisation as a public authority is dependent on the circumstances of the case. In setting up the hospital, the Mission cannot be construed as having assumed a public function. The hospital has no monopoly status conferred or mandated by law. That it was the first in the State to provide service of a particular dispensation does not make it an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 226. State Governments provide concessional terms to a variety of organisations in order to attract them to set up establishments within the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The State may encourage them as an adjunct of its social policy or the imperatives of economic development. 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, in absence of State control in the management of the hospital the hospital does not come within the ambit of a public authority. [Para 31] [467-F-H; 468-A-C]
5. Regulation by a statute does not constitute the hospital as a body which is constituted under the statute. Individuals and organisations are subject to statutory requirements in a whole host of activities. That by itself cannot be conclusive of whether such an individual or organisation discharges a public function. Thus, 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. [Paras 32, 33] [468-E-F; 469-C-D]
6. The Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 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. [Paras 32, 34] [468-B; 469-E-F]
7. 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. [Paras 35, 36] [469-F-H]
Satyabrata Chakraborty v. State of Arunachal Pradesh 2005 (4) GLT 150; Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V R Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 : [1989] 2 SCR 697 ; VST Industries Ltd v. VST Industries Workers’ Union (2001) 1 SCC 298 : [2000]
5 Suppl. SCR 438 ; G Bassi Reddy v International Crops Research Institute (2003) 4 SCC 225 : [2003] 1 SCR 1174 ; Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (2012) 12 SCC 331 : [2012] 12 SCR 315 ; Federal Bank Ltd. v Sagar Thomas (2013) 10 SCC 733 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 121– relied on.
Federal Bank Ltd. v Sagar Thomas (2013) 10 SCC 733: [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 121 ; Binny Ltd. v V Sadasivan (2005) 6 SCC 657 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 421 ; K K Saksena v International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015) 4 SCC 670 ; Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722 : [1981] 2 SCR 79; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 : [2002] 3 SCR 100; Jatya Pal Singh v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC
452 : [2013] 2 SCR 970 – referred to.
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.