STATE OF U. P. V. RADHEY SHYAM RAI 2009 (3) SCALE 754
FACTS
The Sansthan was established by a Government Order dated 4.08.1975. The State had established training centres at Shahjahanpur, Muzaffarnagar and Gorakhpur. Before its establishment, the functions were being performed by the Cane Development Department. After the Sansthan was established, the management of such centres was transferred to it. Respondent was appointed in the post of Computer Officer/Data Processing Officer. The Governing Council of the Sansthan in its meeting held on 28.04.1997 resolved to abolish the posts created and to cancel the appointments made via an order dated 17.05.1977. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.1997, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein one of the issues raised was whether the Sansthan is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
ISSUE
The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan (“the Sansthan”), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
The full bench of the High Court stated that the Sansthan being an authority would come within the purview of definition of ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- This Hon'ble court observed that the documents produced before the High Court revealed that 80 to 90% of the expenditure of Sansthan was met out of the funds made available to it by the Government. The majority of the office bearers of the -Governing Council were holders of various offices of the Government and the Sansthan wasn’t free to appoint anybody who wasn’t a government servant. It was also observed that Rule 41 of the Rules of Sansthan provides that the Governor shall have power to issue any directives to the Sansthan concerning any matter of public importance and the Sansthan shall give immediate effect to the directives so issued.
- From the materials placed on record, this Hon'ble court observed that there was no doubt that the state exercises deep control over the affairs of the Sansthan. Majority of the governing council which played a vital role in carrying out the affairs of the Sansthan, were holders of the different offices of the State Government. Hence, this court held that the High Court has "rightly held” the Sansthan `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
CASES REFERRED WITHIN THE JUDGEMENT
- In Mysore Paper Mills Ltd v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association, it was held that Mysore Paper Mills was a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it was substantially financed and controlled by the Government, managed by the Board of Directors nominated and removable at the instance of the Government and carrying on functions of public interest under its control.
- In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar SinghRaghuvanshi, it was quoted with approval in Pradeep Kuniar Biswas that “A finding of the State financial support plus an unusual degree of control over the management and policies might lead one to characterise an operation as State action.”
- In Pradeep Kumar Biswas, it was held that the tests formulated within the case of Ajay Hasia weren’t a set of rigid principles, so that if a body falls within any one of them must ex hypothesi be considered within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as was established, the body is financially, and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”