AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and S. K. Singh, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant for the respondent.
Sri Ravi Kant raised a preliminary objection that this writ is not maintainable as the respondent No. 1 is a private body and is not an Instrumentality of the State. We agree with this preliminary objection. In our opinion, the respondent No. 1 is a purely private body. Ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. We are of the opinion that the respondent No. 1 is not an instrumentality of the State and hence no writ petition lies against it. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Vijay Narayan Ojha 2001 (2) AWC 1071 : 2001 (43) ALR 276. In our opinion, this decision is clearly distinguishable. No doubt in some exceptional cases, a writ lies against a private body on which some public duty has been imposed by the statute. In our opinion, the respondent No. 1 is not performing any public duty. Merely because it has opened a school that does not mean that running of a school is its main occupation. In fact, it is incidental to the main function of the respondent which is engaged in business.
Sri Ravi Kant relied on the decisions in S.S. Dhanoa Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others, ; Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training and other[OVERRULED], ; Biman Krishna Bose Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., etc., in support of his preliminary objection. We agree with the preliminary objection of Sri Ravi Kant.
The writ petition is, in our opinion, not maintainable and it is dismissed accordingly.