T RANGA REDDY Vs. JOINT PROJECT CO ORDINATOR NON FERROUS MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In WP No. 16587 of 1994, the order dated 6-6-1994 terminating the services of the petitioner as Deputy Director of Non-Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre ('NFTDC' for short) is under challenge. The other three writ petitions are filled by casual employees and workers of NFTDC seeking regularisation of their services.

(2.) The common question which arises in all these writ petitions is whether NFTDC is 'State'/ 'Instrumentality of State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and a writ may be issued against it.

(3.) Judicial review of private action or in other words regulation of the exercise of power by private bodies discharging public functions is one of the major concerns of administrative law in recent times. The concept of 'State' and 'State Action' has undergone drastic changes and the line of demarcation between public law and private law has become blurred. After all, the purpose of law, be it public or private, is to impart justice to the needy people. With the manifold increase of the activities undertaken by the State and its instrumentalities, the State is now virtually treated as a service corporation. More recently we have been witnessing increasing privatisation which is pushing back the frontiers of the public sector and generally replacing public monopoly power by substantial elements of private monopoly power. The need has, therefore, arisen for further adaptation and extention of public law principles to private bodies to make them more accountable and conform to the discipline of law. Keeping in view the need to curb arbitrary and unregulated power wherever or howsoever reposed, the Supreme Court in several landmark judgments beginning with the leading case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857, followed by Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331, (popularly known as ONGC case), R.D. Shelly v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487, Somprakash Rekhi v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212, Central Inland Transport Corpn. v. Brojonath Ganguli, AIR 1986 SC 1571, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 and Sri Anadimukta Sadguru etc., Trust v. R. Rudani, Al R 1989 SC 1607, through creative interpretation and bold innovation has expanded and liberalised the ambit and scope of the expression 'other authorities' and paved the way for the development of human rights jurisprudence in our country to a remarkable extent.