RAHUL GARG Vs. TRAINED NURSES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a member of the Trained Nurses Association of India ["Association"] has petitioned this Court seeking the following reliefs: -

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken by the Association to the maintainability of the writ petition with learned counsel for the respondent contending that the Association is neither State nor is it an authority which would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court as conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the Association is a purely private body and that its functioning is governed by Byelaws which are non-statutory in character. According to learned counsel those Byelaws have no statutory flavor and consequently, the writ petition would not be maintainable. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division bench of the Court in S.D. Siddiqui vs. University of Delhi and Ors 2005 SCC OnLine Del. 1226. It becomes pertinent to note that S.D. Siddiqui was dealing with the correctness of the view as expressed by a learned Judge of the Court holding that a writ petition against the Delhi University Teachers' Association would be maintainable. While considering the challenge to that judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench after noticing the various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution held as follows: -

(3.) Countering the objection as taken, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the constitution of the Association as well as the Rules and Regulations framed and adopted by it. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the Association discharges a public function and performs public duties and would thus be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw sustenance from the judgment rendered by a Full bench of the Allahabad High Court in Roychan Abraham vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine ALL 3935 and more particularly to paragraph 34 of the report which is extracted hereinbelow: -