| CITATION | 2009(3) SCALE 754 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | MARCH 06, 2009 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| APPELLANT | STATE OF U.P. & Anr. |
| RESPONDENT | RADHEY SHYAM RAI |
| BENCH | S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH. |
STATUTES
Article 12 of the Indian constitution – “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”
INTRODUCTION
This case is important because it addresses the most well-known and contentious issue that which bodies can be designated “state” in Article 12 of the Indian constitution. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Radhey Shyam Rai* was a constitutional law case heard by India’s Supreme Court in 2009. The decision was made on March 6, 2009. The State of Uttar Pradesh was the petitioner, while Radhey Shyam Rai was the respondent.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- To improve sugar output in the state, the state administration determined that it was crucial to provide knowledge/training to cane producers and various other related individuals. The cane department began training government personnel and cane producers with the foundation of U.P. Ganna Kisan Sansthan.
- A Government Order dated 4.08.1975 established the Sansthan. The state had set up training facilities in Shahjahanpur, Muzaffarnagar, and Gorakhpur. As previously stated, these training centers were administered by the Government of Uttar Pradesh’s Cane Development Department.
- The management of the aforementioned training centers has been entrusted to the Sansthan. The expenditures were to be covered by the U.P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh and Sakkar Vishesh Nidhi. Respondent was hired as a Computer Officer/Data Processing Officer. The Sansthan’s Governing Council decided on April 28, 1997, to abolish the roles created and revoke the appointments made, and the respondent’s services were terminated by an order dated May 17, 1997.
- Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 17.05.1997, he filed Writ Petition No. 869 of 1998 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, one of the issues raised being whether the Sansthan is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The writ petition filed by the respondent was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.
- It referred to a previous decision of another Division Bench of the same Court, which held that appellant No. 2 is not a ‘State’ within the sense of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. However, another point of view was expressed. The Full Bench decided that the Sansthan, as an authority, would fall under the concept of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
ISSUE RAISED
- Is the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan a state as defined by Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?
- whether a writ for certiorari or in order in the nature of a writ of certiorari is maintainable against “Sansthan” under article 226 of the Indian constitution.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
1. Since it was an autonomous entity registered under the Societies Registration Act, the society was not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12.
2. The society was neither economically, practically, or authoritatively dominated or strongly affected by the government.
3. The organization was solely giving information and training to cane producers and others involved in the business, and it was not performing any government-assigned public role or obligation.
4. The society was not founded on or under the authority of legislation; rather, it was founded on a Government Order that may be rescinded at any time.
5. The general public was not constrained by any legal rules or guidelines, but rather by its own bylaws, which might be altered by its governing body.
6. The society was responsible solely to its members and contributors, not to the wider public or the government.
7. The society was audited only by its own auditors, rather than by the government or any other statutory body.
8. The society was just competing with other similar societies in the sector of cane development, and it had no monopoly position or government-granted privileges.
9. The group was simply doing philanthropic work for cane growers and those connected to them, not performing any sovereign government duty.
10. The group was ineligible for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it was not a “State” or an “authority” as defined by Article 12.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- The tasks undertaken by the Sansthan were formerly performed directly by the Government.
- Training institutes in Uttar Pradesh aim to improve sugarcane cultivation and management through scientific methods, enhancing cane production and achieving better sugar production.
- The State established the Sansthan to manage its functions, transfer training management to institutes, and transfer all assets, including infrastructural facilities, to it.
- The Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane Cooperative Federation was established in 1975-76 with a budget of Rs. 6.00 lakhs, 50% funded by the government and the remaining 50% by state-run mills.
- The State Contingent Fund provided Rs. 2 lakhs for a training course reform committee, with the remainder released upon approval and Appropriation Bill passage.
- The Uttar Pradesh Sugar Cane Act, of 1961 allocated 50% of tax from the State Consolidated Fund to the ‘Sakkar Vishesh Nidhi’, which was withdrawn in 1988-89 for Sansthan.
- The bulk of the Governing Council’s office bearers held various government positions. The Cane Department’s Minister-in-Charge holds the position of Chief Executive Officer, ex-officio Chairman of the Governing Council in Uttar Pradesh’s government.
CASES REFERRED
In Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 167], it was held that Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. was a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution because it was substantially financed and controlled by the Government, managed by a Board of Directors nominated and removable at the Government’s request, and carried out functions of public interest under its control.
In Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court established the following standards for establishing the sort of actions that would bring the body under the concept of ‘State’:
(i) Development of the body
(ii) Objects and their functions
(iii) Administration and Control
(iv) Financial assistance, etc.
“The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesis, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be — whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally, 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.”
JUDGEMENT
The facts presented before the court provide little question that the State has a profound and pervasive control over the business of the Sansthan, with the Cane Commissioner at the head. The Accounts Officer is a State Government officer who is also sent on deputation. As previously stated, the majority of members of the Governing Council occupy various positions in the State Government. They are essential in carrying out the Sansthan’s business. They alone have the authority to select anyone of their choosing for the position. All directives given by the State Government must be followed at all times. As a result, we believe that the Full Bench of the High Court correctly declared the Sansthan to be a ‘State’ within the sense of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has re-iterated previous, well-established rulings in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, and the most famous case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology through this 2-judge bench, clearing any ambiguity left with cases relating to the applicability of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
REFERENCE
https://vlex.in/vid/state-of-uttar-pradesh
https://lawplanet.in/state-of-u-p-v-radhey-shyam-rai
https://www.casemine.com/judgement
written by bhoomi sharma an intern at legal vidhiya
0 Comments