DEBASHIS NANDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is an association of the Retired Employees of the second respondent, who were posted at the Head Office of the second respondent. The writ petition is essentially directed against the second respondent i.e. Andrew Yule and Company Limited.

(2.) Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Anupam Ghosh versus Union of India and others, reported in 1991 (2) CHN 451. In that case, the learned Trial Judge had held that Andrew Yule (hereinafter referred to as the said company) was not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, a writ petition was not maintainable against the said company. This finding of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

(3.) Mr. Majumder also referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court delivered on 23rd July, 2008 in Movewell Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and another versus The Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. and others (APOT No. 67 of 2008). In the said case, the Division Bench took the same view as was taken by the Division Bench in the case of Anupam Ghosh.