Are Writ Petitions Under Article 226 Maintainable Against Army Welfare Education Society Or Army Public Schools? Punjab & Haryana HC Refers To Larger Bench

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has referred the issue of whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution would be maintainable against the Army Welfare Society or against the Army Public School, to the larger bench.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "The language of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to issue a writ, order or direction to any person or authority, including any Government for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose."

Thus, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the definition of the State and its authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India would not limit the powers of this Court to issue a writ against an institution like Army Public School which is performing public functions and is recognized by the Board, it added.

However the Court in view of diametrically opposite, contrary and conflicting views expressed by different benches of the same strength and prima facie view, deemed it appropriate to refer the following issue to a larger bench. The bench stated:

“Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable by employees/ teachers/ aggrieved persons against the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) or against Army Public School for vindication of their rights and claims ?”

The development came hearing the plea against Army Public School. The petitioner referred to Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others vs V. R. Rudani and others 1989 (2) SCC 691, wherein it was held that any person or authority performing public duty like imparting education and thereby owing positive obligation to the society in general and people of India would be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The institutes imparting education such as Army Public School are duly recognized by the Central Board of Education and governed by its directions, hence, as it performs functions of the State, it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction, added the counsel.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to various rulings wherein the High Court answered the question differently.

The Court referred to Reena Panta vs Union of India and others in which the division bench of the High Court made it clear that the Army Public Schools are an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whereas in a division bench in Hem Chand vs Union of India and others, 2003 (4) SLR 787 considered the question, "Whether or not the Army Welfare Education Society is an instrumentality of the State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.?”

It was held that the Army Welfare Education Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. "The Government exercises absolutely no control in the management of the Society. It is not a company which would fall within Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956."

The Court noted that different Courts have taken different views in relation to Army Public Schools. In Bineeta Patnaik Padhi vs Union of India and others 2021 (2) ESC 556, Calcutta High Court has held that private unaided educational Schools discharging public duty under the RTE Act is amenable to the Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Army Schools were held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Reliance was placed on the High Court's division bench decision in State of Punjab vs Devans Modern Breweries Limited [2004], wherein it was held that:

“Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate bench follow the decision of earlier coordinate bench. If a coordinate bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another bench, the matter may be referred only to a larger bench.”

In light of the above, the Court referred the matter to the larger bench and directed the registry to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice for forming an appropriate Larger Bench for its consideration.

R. K. Arora, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

Raman B. Garg, Mayank Garg and Pallavi Gujral, Advocates, for respondent nos. 2 and 3 In LPA No. 328 of 2021.

 D. S. Gill, Advocate for R. S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent no. 4 In CWP No. 6917 of 2022.

Title: Simran Kaur versus Union of India and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 126

Click here to read/download the order