‘Orissa Association For The Blind’ Not State Under Article 12: High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that the ‘Orissa Association for the Blind’ does not come under the definition of ‘State’ as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

While rejecting a writ petition filed by an employee against the organisation, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held,

“…this Court is of the view that in order to be covered within the definition of Article-12 of the Constitution of India, the guideline framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia as cited (supra) has to be fulfilled.”

The petitioner was working as an ‘Aiya’ in ‘Utkal Blind Organization of Vocational and Training Centre’, which is run by the ‘Orissa Association for the Blind’. She filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the termination from her service in an arbitrary manner, in violation of principle of natural justice.

While taking up the matter for hearing, at the threshold, the Court doubted the maintainability of the petition and asked the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy it as to how the Association can be considered as a State under Article 12, making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

To convince the Court as to the maintainability of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, including the ones in Vidya Dhar Pande v. Vydut Grih Siksha Samiti & Ors. and Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, Union Terriotory, Chandigarh & Ors. He also relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Dipali Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1994 LAB IC 1300.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State challenged the maintainability of the plea. To substantiate his stand, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the High Court in Nagendra Nath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors.

It was submitted by the counsel for the State that in the above judgment, the Court relied upon a number of judgments delivered by the Apex Court on the issue of meaning of State, instrumentality of State and other authorities under the purview of Article 12.

Therein the Court, after surfing through a plethora of precedents, came to the conclusion that the guideline issued by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. is to be followed while deciding the issue in question.

The top Court in Ajay Hasia (supra) took into consideration multiple authoritative judgments, including the one in the landmark case of R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors., to issue a summarised guideline which is to be followed while deciding the connotation of Article 12. If any of the following criteria is met by an organization, it was held, it would be considered a State:

• If the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency or Government.
• Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character.
• It may also be a relevant factor whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected.
• Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
• If the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classified the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government.
• Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a Corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government,

It was argued for the State that none of the above conditions is fulfilled by the Association in question in the instant case and therefore, writ cannot be issued against it by the High Court.

“Since in the present case, no material has been placed showing fulfilment of the guideline so framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia, showing that Orissa Association for Blind is coming within the said guideline, this Court is of the view that the Orissa Association for Blind is not a State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Anita Manjari Rout v. President, Orissa Association for the Blind, Odisha Bhubaneswar & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 21917 of 2023

Date of Judgment: September 22, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan Panda & Mr. J.K. Rout, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 101

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment