M G KARUPPAIAH Vs. CANTEEN OFFICER AQMG HEADQUARTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as a salesman in the Karnataka and Goa sub-area Canteen (for short, 'canteen' ). By the impugned order dated 15-2-1993, his services were terminated by the Canteen Officer, Bangalore. It is the correctness or otherwise of this order, which is questioned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on the sole ground that the impugned order could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. Therefore, the order is bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) RESPONDENTS, besides contesting the petition on merits, have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition and it is specifically asserted that the Canteen is not the instrumentality of the state falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and not 'other authority' used in Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the contention they strongly rely upon the observations made by learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of sarasamma v Union of India and Others. Their learned counsel while reiterating the objections filed, relies upon the dicta of the Supreme court in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others and in chander Mohan Sharma v National Council of Educational Research and Training and Others.

(3.) PER contra Sri Narayana Swamy, the learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent-Canteen is a 'state' coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, solely on the ground that the canteen is run in terms of the Army Order 709 of 1951 and the General policy for the administration of the Canteen will be drawn by the Chairman who is none other than the Army Commandant of the Sub-area. Secondly, he submits that the Canteen is run in organised lines in accordance with the rules, orders, instructions received from Headquarters from time to time. Lastly, he asserts since all the appointments to the Canteen is made by the Chairman, the Central Government has absolute control over the administration of the Canteen and therefore, the respondent-Canteen would come within the expression 'state' in article 12 of the Constitution. On the merits of the case, he submits, since petitioner's services are terminated without even holding a summary enquiry, the order is bad and illegal.