ANIL MALIK Vs. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was working as Head of Central Region, Lucknow in Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited-respondent no.1, has filed this writ petition challenging his discharge/removal by the letter dated 28th July, 2004 inter-alia on the ground that the employment of the petitioner in the respondent-company was not linked to or co-terminus with the existence or continuance of the Central Region of the Company at Lucknow and was employed to work anywhere in the Company; and the impugned order has been issued by the Head Corporate Planning HR and MIS whereas the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Managing Director / Chief Executive Officer.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-company that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent no.1 & 2 is neither a "State" nor any "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as such it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited [in short referred to as the "respondent company"] was incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and was specified as a Public Financial Institution in terms of Section 4A of the Companies Amendment Act 1999 ( No.21 of 1999) by a Circular No. 3 of 4.5.1999 issued by the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India. The objects for which the company has been established is detailed in the Memorandum of Association, a perusal of which reveals that the respondent company was set up for the purpose of developing and establishment of various infrastructure projects to develop the economic welfare of the country. The company has been charged with the responsibility of creating a wide network of infrastructure of Roads, Highways, Railways, Airways, Water Ways, Ports, Transport System etc. According to learned Counsel, there were seven subscribers who formed the company. Out of these seven subscribers, six contributes more than eighty percent of the share holding.