M.G. KARUPPAIAH Vs. THE CANTEEN OFFICER (AQMG) HEADQUARTERS, KARNATAKA AND GOA SUB-AREA, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

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 and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 and in Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training and other[OVERRULED], AIR 1992 SC 76 .

(3.) THE primary question that requires to be considered and decided is whether the respondent -Canteen is a 'State' coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution or 'Other authority' as envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution and whether the respondent -Canteen is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court? Normally, the discussion would begin in such matters from Ajay Hasia's case, supra, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while considering the question as to whether a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act could be a State within the meaning of Article 12 has culled out six tests from an earlier decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , They are as under: