In In Ramakrishna Mission vs. Kago Kunya, an employee of the Hospital managed by the Mission had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the management to allow him to continue in service until he completes thirty- five years of service, counting the appointment from 31 March 1982 when he was substantively appointed as a Nursing Aid.
The objection of the Appellant against filling of a writ against it was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court holding that Ramakrishna Mission is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In appeal, the Division Bench held that while Ramakrishna Mission may not be ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 in the strict sense of the term, nonetheless its hospital at Itanagar performs a public duty and in consequence would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on a liberal interpretation of the expression ‘authority’ in that Article.
The Supreme Court observed that over time the principles to determine what constitutes a ‘public duty’ and ‘public function’ and whether the writ of mandamus would be available to an individual who seeks to enforce her right has evolved through various judgments which would lead to answer to the basic issue, 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. Among the various points which came up before the Supreme Court from those judgment, the significant once are :-
1) 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.
2) Only functions which are similar or closely related to those that are performed by the State in its sovereign capacity qualify as ‘public functions’ or a ‘public duty’
3) A private body can be held to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when it performs public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State or its authorities.
4) Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.
5) A writ would not lie to enforce purely private law rights. Consequently, even if a body is performing a public duty and is amenable to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, all its decisions would not be subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court decided that the activities of the Mission are voluntary, charitable and non-profit making in nature. The activities undertaken by the Mission, a non-profit entity 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. 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. 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. There is nothing on record to indicate that the hospital performs functions which are akin to those solely performed by State authorities. In setting up the hospital, the Mission cannot be construed as having assumed a public function. 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.
Therefore the Supreme Court decided that writ is not maintainable against the Mission or the Hospital run by it.
Comments
Post a Comment