ASULAL LOYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-Bharat Aluminium Company Limited is no longer a government of India undertaking and was privatized pursuant to a tripartite share purchase agreement dated 2nd day of March, 2001. The petitioner, Mr. Asulal Loya had filed the present writ petition on 28th September, 1991 challenging his order of termination of service by the respondent company. A preliminary issue has been raised by the respondent company that the present writ petition is no longer maintainable and no relief can be granted against the respondent company as it is not a "state" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the writ petition when it was originally filed against the respondent company was maintainable and it would be unjust and unfair to "non-suit" the petitioner after so many years. It is also stated that ordinary rule of litigation is that rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of commencement of litigation and right to relief should be decided with reference to the date on which the petitioner entered portals of the Court. This principle was applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh versus State of U. P. and others, reported in JT 2002 (10) SC 417, in which it was observed as under:-

(2.) THE aforesaid decision is not directly on the point in issue in the present case. The question which requires consideration is whether in the present writ petition any relief can be granted to the petitioner if at the time when judgment is pronounced, the respondent in the litigation is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. I may note here that Article 367 of the Constitution stipulates that provisions of General clauses Act, 1872 can be applied for interpretation of the Constitution. However, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it has been held is not applicable to the Constitution of India. Allahabad High Court in Seth jagamander Das and Others versus State, reported in AIR 1951 Allahabad 703 has held that Section 6 applies where any Central Act or Regulation is repealed. Constitution of India is not a Central Act or Regulation. The said decision and observations in this regard of Allahabad High Court were approved by the Supreme court in the appeal preferred by State of Uttar Pradesh against said decision, titled State of Uttar Pradesh versus Seth Jagamander Das reported in AIR 1954 SC 683. Moreover, normally inchoate rights which have not matured, do not survive. A mere hope or expectation does not confer any right.

(3.) IT is fairly well settled that a writ petition is not maintainable against a private limited company or a public limited company in which the State does not exercise all pervasive control. In Binny Limited and Another versus V. Sadasivan and Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657, the Supreme Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is normally issued against public authorities and can also be issued against private authorities when they are discharging public functions and the decision which is sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a public function. In the present case, the issues and questions involved do not relate to public functions.