State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam Rai, 2009(3) SCALE 754

INTRODUCTION

StateofU.P.v. Radhey Shyam Rai was a case decided by the Supreme Court of India on March 6, 2009. In this case the main question was involved that Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan( UPGKS) was the society registered under the Societies Registration Act is” state” and come under the  realm of Article 12 of The Constitution of India. Honorable Court also overruled the several judgements in relation of granting justice and set reference for the  future proceedings. With the changing societal conditions, a large number of bodies exercising public functions have been brought within the  realm of the  description of” State”. In this point court suppose need not dilate on the development of law in this regard in view of the opinions rendered by this Court  beginning from Rajasthan SEBv. Mohan Lal, Ajay Hasiav. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and other opinions including a Seven- Judge Bench decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswasv. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan was established by a Government Order dated 4-8-1975 and registered as the society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 
2. The State had established training centres at Shahjahanpur, Muzaffarnagar and Gorakhpur. These training centres, as  discerned hereinbefore, were being run by the Cane Development Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Before constituting the Sansthan, its functions viz. Conducting knowledge and training to the cane-  growers and connected persons  consequently as to effect  boost in the product of sugar in the State was being performed by the Cane Development Department of the government of Uttar Pradesh. The operation of the  spoke training centres was transferred to the sansthan and funds were allegedly met from the govt for the expenditure of UPGKS.
3. The reporter( Radhey Shyam) was designated in the post of Computer Officer In the sansthan. The  presiding  Council of the Sansthan in its  gathering held on 28-4-1997 Concluded to abolish the posts created and to abandon the movables made, pursuant 
4. whereto the services of the replier were dispensed with by an order dated 17- 5- 1997. Replier feeling  displeased by the order and filed a writ plea before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Writ solicitationNo. 869 of 1998 wherein one of the issues  expressed was whether the Sansthan is” State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
5. The writ  supplication filed by the replier came up for  reflection before a Division Bench of the High Court. It  discerned an earlier  resolution of another Division Bench of the  spoke Court wherein it was allowed that Appellant 2 isn’t” State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Still, a  nonidentical  prospect was taken by the full  judge and held that Sansthan held to be”  country” under the horizon of Article 12 of Constitution Of India. 
6. Then appeal against said orders of High Court was made by sansthan before the Supreme Court Of India.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan (for short Sansthan’) is ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

1. Sansthan was not financially, practical, or authoritative, and its management functions were overwhelmed by or heavily influenced by the public authority and not by the government.
2.  Sansthan was only imparting knowledge and training to cane farmers and others connected to the industry, and it was not carrying out any public function or duty assigned by the government, so it was not a public authority. 
3. Sansthan was not accountable to the general public or the government but only to its members and donors.
4. Because it was not a “state” or an “authority” as described in Article 12, the UPGKS was ineligible for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. That the control and administration of the Sansthan is dominated by the council and the Minister of Cane Development and Sugar diligence happens to be The Ex-officio Chairman of the Society and also the pay scales of workers of sanasthan was fixed by govt.
2. That the control of the State Government is not only non administrative but also deep and pervasive and the U.P.G.K.S is” State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 
3. Reckoning upon the decisionin R.D. Shetty V. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.( 1979) 3 SCC 489, Mysore Paper Mills V. Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association & Anr.( 2002) 2 SCC 167, Virendra KumarSrivastavav.U.P. Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam & Anr.( 2005) 1 SCC 149; Pradeep Kumar BiswasV. Indian Institute of Chemical, Biology( 2002) 5 SCC 111, learned Counsel has submitted that the tests which have been laid down in the forenamed cases for determining whether a body is a State or not, are fulfilled bytheU.P.G.K.S and as such the Sansthan is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

JUDGEMENT

Court took a look on Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (2002) where in, Supreme Court laid down the following test for the purpose of determining the nature of activities which would make the body come within ambit of the definition of state under Article 12 .

1. Formation of the body.
2. Object and function.
3. Management and control.
4. Financial aid.

Now coming to present case court observed,

1. Minister incharge of Cane Department (U.P.) is ex-officio Chairman of the governing Council the Sansthan.
2. The Director and Accounts Officer are also the government servants.

3. This Sansthan was established to provide scientific ways of sugarcane cultivation and Management which is a state function (public function).
4. 80 % to 90% of financial aid is provided by the government. So, court held that the Sansthan is a state within the meaning of article 12 of Indian Constitution

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the various facts, legal issues, and precedents, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the State exercises a deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Sansthan. The officer of the State Government is also sent on deputation for the various post such as Accounts Officer. The majority of the members of the Governing Council, as noticed hereinbefore, are holders of different offices of the State Government. Government plays a Imperative role in carrying out the affairs of the Sansthan. They alone have power to appoint anybody of their choice on the post. Hence, the bench of the Supreme Court is opinion that the Full Bench of the High Court has rightly held the Sansthan “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India

REFERENCE

1. https://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/constitution-of-india-1950-art-12-state-meaning-of-uttar-pradesh-ganna-kishan-sansthan-a-society-registered-under-the-societies-registration-act-dispute-raised-whether-it-was-a-state/ 
2. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414df6 
3. https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500048945 

This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin