Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002

By

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002||Case Summary


Introduction 

  1. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002 the Supreme Court reconsidered the decision of "Subhajit Tewary v. Union of India, 1975 in which the Court held that CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) does not come under the definition of "State" as CSIR is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12.

Facts 

  1. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002 the appellant approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition under Article 136 to challenge the termination of his service by the Respondent 1 which is a unit of CSIR.
  2. As a result, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred this case to a Constitution Bench being of the view that the case of  Subhajit Tewary, 1975 required to reconsideration in which Subhajit, a Junior Stenographer filed a writ under Article 32 to claim equal remuneration with the newly recruited Stenographer to CSIR. In that case, the bench of 5 judges denied the benefits while stating that the writ under Article 32 is not maintainable.

Main Issue 

  1. Whether CSIR comes within the meaning of "the State" under Article 12  of the Constitution.
  2. Whether writ under Article 32 is maintainable against the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, which is a unit of CSIR. 

Court Observation and Decision 

  1. Under Article 12 "the State" includes the Government and parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities under the control of G.O.I within the territory of India. 
  2. The definition of "the State" under Article 12 is inclusive which means it has a liberal approach and includes many aspects. 
  3. In the famous case 'Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, 1969 and the Som Prakash Rekhi, 1981 the Court held that the expression 'other authorities' in the Article 12 will include all constitutional or statutory authority on whom power has been conferred by law. 
  4. J. Mathew said in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuwanshi, 1975 that the concept of "State" had undergone drastic changes in recent years.
  5. J. Mathew said about four indications to consider an agency under Article 12 the definition of "State" :
    1. Such an agency should have enough financial support from the government.
    2. Secondly, the operation of such an agency should be an important public function. Such an agency should act for the welfare of the public. 
  6. In the Ramana case, 1979 the Court summarised some points to consider an agency of the Government if : 
    1. Entire share capital of the corporation is managed by the government.
    2. The entire expenditure is handled by the Government.
    3. The Corporation is protected by the state.
    4. The functions are of public importance.
  7. CSIR has all the essential features to come under the category of "the State" under Article 12 of the Constitution for example : 
    1. The Government of India formed CSIR  to exercise administrative control over the work of the two research bodies already set up by the Department of Commerce.
    2. The work of CSIR was to promote, guide and coordinate scientific and industrial research in the India and it has been said in the Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal case that bodies created to promote the educational and economic interest of the people come under the definition of the State.
    3. The Director General who is the ex-officio secretary of the Society is appointed by the Government of India and the Prime Minister is the ex-officio president of the society but the power being exercised by the prime minister is as president of the Society. 
    4. The budget estimates of the Society are to be prepared by the Governing Body as per the instructions of the Government of India.

Decision 

  1. The Court overruled the earlier decision of 5 judges bench and held that the CSIR comes under Article 12 the definition of 'State'. 
  2. Appeal Allowed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more