S. PADMANABHAN Vs. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following prayer:

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.S.S.Naganand appearing for the Respondent No.1-Bangalore Turf Club, opposes the petition on the preliminary ground of maintainability contending that his client is only an incorporated company and it does not answer the definition of 'State' u/a 12 of the Constitution, as has been so held by this court itself in VEENA HARISH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 4252: (2019) 2 KCCR 1027. He points that the Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in PESI SHROFF vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1993 Bom 384 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in HYDER ALI KHAN vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 344. Even otherwise, he submits, because of disputed questions of facts, the writ jurisdiction is not suitable for adjudication of the lis in question.

(3.) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner submits that the Managing Committee of the respondent-Club comprises of nominees of the government and that the bye-laws to be effective or to be amended need the consent of the government; there are four nominees of the government appointed ex officio on the Board of Management of the Club and thus, the government exercises pervasive control over the affairs of management; he also points outs that the Club conducts its business on a huge land given by the State Government in the heart of the city and therefore, it is an instrumentality of the State. Once it is found to be an instrumentality, Mr.Holla contends, all its actions are liable to suffer judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, he banks upon a Coordinate Bench decision of this court in BANGALORE TURF CLUB vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER , .