Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10756 of 2018
Petitioner :- Narendrpal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujit Kumar Rai
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri Raj Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sujit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents no.2, 4 & 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 3.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the respondent no.4, Chairman, Kisan Seva Sahakari Samiti Syalari, Block: Pahasu, District Bulandshahar whereby he has been placed under suspension.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Sujit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari, Chini Mills Ltd. Sultanpur Vs. Satrughan Nishad and others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 639 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has held as under:
"9.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents submitted that even if the Mill is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, writ application can be entertained as mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person or authority which would include any private person or body. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that mandamus can be issued against private person or body only if infraction alleged is in performance of public duty. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samarak Trust and others v. V.R.Rudani and others (1989) 2 SCC 691 in which this Court examined the various aspects and distinction between an authority and a person and after analysis of the decisions referred in that regard came to the conclusion that it is only in the circumstances when the authority or the person performs a public function or discharges a public duty that Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. In the cases of K.Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another (1997) 3 SCC 571 and VST Industries Ltd. v.VST Industries Workers' Union and another, (2001) 1 SCC 298, the same principle has been reiterated. Further, in the case of VST Industries Ltd. (supra), it was observed that manufacture and sale of cigarettes by a private person will not involve any public function. This being the position in that case, this Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, the Mill is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar which, on the same analogy, would not involve any public function. Thus, we have no difficulty in holding that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have been invoked."
This controversy has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.56576 of 2010, Ram Autar Vs. State of U.P. and Others vide judgement dated 15.09.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this legal position.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.The petitioner may avail the remedy as available to him in law.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 N Tiwari