FANCY REHABILITATION TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) Petitioner no.1 is a Trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Petitioners activities commenced in 1974 and after 1990 the petitioners activities are in the field of rehabilitation of the physically handicapped persons and other less fortunate people. Petitioner no.2 is the Managing Trustee of petitioner no.1. Respondent no.3-a Private Limited Company had given a contract to petitioner no.1 for house keeping. In February 2003, the respondent no.3 discontinued part of the services rendered by petitioner no.1. but again gave them a contract in April, 2004. There is some dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.3 about the outstanding amount payable in a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- since April 2004 till May, 2006. Respondent no.3 has now discontinued the contract with petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 for the purposes of house-keeping activities had engaged 8 persons and of them two are deaf and dumb, one orphan and three widows.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent no.3, a reply has been filed. It is pointed out that the respondent no.3 is not a State within the meaning of Constitution of India and, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent no.3 is not performing or discharging any public function nor has been entrusted with any public utility services so as to make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition proceeds on the basis that the provisions of the Act apply to the petitioners. Respondent no.3 is a private limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is not a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or the State Act. There is no privity of contract between respondent no.3 and the persons on whose behalf the petition has been filed. Respondent no.3 had given a contract to petitioner no.1. Respondent no.3 was compelled to terminate the contract with respondent no.1 mainly on account of shifting of all operations apart from other grounds and as the petitioner no.1 is not equipped to provide, the level and standard of service required, considering that the equipment installed by the respondents is sophisticated and the requirement of their house keeping is entirely different from routine house keeping. It is not necessary to advert to the various other averments which are in answer to the averments made by the petitioners in the petition.