| Case Name: State Of Up & Anr vs Radhey Shyam Rai |
| Equivalent Citation: 2009(3)SCALE754 |
| Date of Judgement: 6 March 2009 |
| Court: Supreme Court of India |
| Petitioner: State of U.P. & Anr. |
| Respondent: Radhey Shyam Rai |
Bench: (Justice)S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph
FACT OF THE CASE
● The respondent (Radhey Shyam Rai) was employed by the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, as a data processing officer.
● The general public carried out roles like bestowing preparation and information to stick ranchers
and related people with the intention of expanding the development of sugar by the state.
● The general public’s administering board annulled the information handling officials’ posts and excused the respondent’s administrations on 28th April 1997.
● The respondent appealed his dismissal in a writ petition to the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the society was a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
● According to Article 12, the term “State” encompasses both the Indian Government and Parliament as well as the Government and Legislature of each of the States, as well as any and all local or other authorities located within the territory of India or under the control of the Indian Government.
● The writ petition was denied by a division bench of the High Court, which ruled that the society was not a “State” because it was not financially, functionally, or administratively dominated by the Government or under its control.
● A full bench of the High Court switched the division bench judgment, holding that the general public was a ‘State’ as it was considerably funded by the Public authority and carried out a public role of expanding sugar creation by the state.
● The State of U.P. appealed to the Supreme Court against the full bench’s judgment.
● The full bench’s decision was upheld by a two-judge Supreme Court bench, which agreed that the society was a “State” due to its financial, administrative, and functional dependence on the state government and its goal of increasing the state’s sugar production, which was a state function.
ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether or not the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan, a society that was given its registration under the Societies Registration Act of Uttar Pradesh, was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian constitution?
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER
1. The society was not a ‘State’ inside the importance of Article 12 as it was an independent body enrolled under the Societies Registration Act.
2. The society was not monetarily, practically or authoritatively overwhelmed by or heavily influenced by the Public authority.
3. The society 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.
4. The society was not established by or with the authority of a statute; rather, it was established by a Government Order that could be revoked at any time.
5. The general public was not limited by any legal standards or guidelines, but rather by its own bye-regulations which could be changed by its administering committee.
6. The society was only accountable to its members and donors, not to the general public or the government.
7. The society was only audited by its own auditors and not by the government or any statutory authority.
8. The society was only competing with other similar societies in the field of cane development, not enjoying any monopoly status or privilege granted by the government.
9. The society was only engaging in charitable work for the benefit of cane farmers and others related to them, not carrying out any sovereign government function.
10. Because it was not a “State” or an “authority” as defined by Article 12, the society was ineligible for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
1. Because it served a public purpose by increasing the state’s sugar production, the society was considered a “State” within the meaning of Article 12.
2. The general public was monetarily reliant upon the Public authority as it got practically 80% to 90% of its use from the Public authority awards and assets.
3. Society was functionally dependent on the government because it had to sometimes follow its orders and directions.
4. The majority of the society’s governing council members were appointed by the state government, so the society was administratively dependent on the government.
5. The society was carrying out a public function or duty of the government, which had previously been carried out by the Cane Development Department and was connected to the state’s function of increasing sugar production.
6. The society was established by a Government Order that had a legal effect and could not be revoked without following the law.
7. The society’s employees and workers were subject to statutory rules and regulations, such as the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act of 1961.
8. The society had to submit annual reports and accounts to the government and publish them for the public’s information, so it was accountable to both the public and the government.
9. Because it was the only society in the state providing cane farmers and other related individuals with training and knowledge in order to increase the state’s sugar production, the society enjoyed a monopoly status or privilege granted by the government.
10. Because it was involved in an essential commodity like sugar and agricultural activity that had an impact on the state’s economy and well-being, the society was performing a sovereign function of the government.
JUDGEMENT
On March 6, 2009, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice S.B. Sinha, handed down the verdict. The verdict upheld the Allahabad High Court’s full bench’s decision that the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of U.P., was a “State” under Article 12 of the Indian constitution.The court agreed with the full bench’s reasoning that the society was financially, administratively, and functionally dependent on the state government. Additionally, the society performed a public function of increasing the state’s sugar production, which was a state function. The judgement dismissed the appeal filed by the state of U.P and
affirmed the order of reinstatement of the respondent as a data processing officer in the society. The judgment came to the conclusion that the society was a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 and that it was subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
In the case of State Of Up & Anr vs. Radhey Shyam Rai, the Supreme Court of India came to the conclusion that the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan (UPGKS) was not a “state” as defined by Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Radhey Shyam Rai was therefore unable to file a writ petition to challenge his dismissal.
The following factors influenced the decision made by the Supreme Court:
The UPGKS was not under the government’s “control.” The UPGKS was established by the Uttar Pradesh Government and received financial support from the Government, but it was not under the Government’s direct control on a daily basis.
The UPGKS was not “a power” inside the significance of Article 12. It lacked the authority to levy taxes or make laws.
Some legal scholars have criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, arguing that the court’s Article 12 narrow definition of “state” will make it difficult for individuals to challenge the actions of government-controlled entities.
Nonetheless, the High Court’s choice is likewise predictable with its past choices on the significance of “state” under Article 12. The Supreme Court ruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that “all organs of the State, irrespective of whether they are departments of the Government or not” fall under the definition of “state.” Nonetheless, the High Court has likewise held that the expression “state” does exclude “confidential bodies, despite the fact that they might be carrying out open roles.”
The decision made by the Supreme Court in the case State of Up & Anr v. Radhey Shyam Rai serves as a reminder that not everyone has the right to challenge the actions of government-controlled entities. People should initially layout that the substance they are testing is a “state” inside the importance of Article 12.
written by Sahitya Shukla intern under legal vidhiya.
0 Comments