SAMPADA Vs. BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present Writ Petition is to the communication dtd. 6/4/2023 issued by the Human Resources Department of the Bombay Natural History Society - respondent no.3 thereby intimating the petitioner who is serving as an Education Officer with the Conservation Department of the Bombay Natural History Society - Society that her services were no longer required by the Society and that on conclusion of the notice period of one month, her engagement would come to an end.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Society to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the Society is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge its communication dtd. 6/4/2023 is not maintainable. It is submitted by Shri K.N. Shukul, learned Counsel for the Society by referring to various documents including its Memorandum of Association that the Society is registered as a Public Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 as well as the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is an autonomous body which meets its expenses from the amounts received through donations, membership fees, entrance fees, etc. It is not dependent upon any funding either by the State Government or the Central Government. In its Governing Council, provision is made for accommodating the Secretary to the Ministry of Scientific Research with the Government of India as well as the Joint Secretary of the State of Maharashtra only if the Central Government or the State Government consents to give to the Society a recurring grant being requested. It is submitted that no such request for being issued any grant has been made. There is absence of deep and pervasive State control either of the Central Government or the State Government. The Society is not discharging any public function and hence various tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others [(1981) 1 SCC 722] are not satisfied. In addition, it is submitted that the tests prescribed by the Full Bench in its decision in Vassudev Madkaikar and Others Vs. State of Goa [AIR 2022 BOMBAY 9] are also not satisfied. Since the petitioner seeks enforcement of her contract of service and the Society is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition against it is not maintainable.