RAJ BEHARI RAM Vs. WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the course of hearing of this writ application, Justice D.P. Kundu was of the view that the Respondent Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. is "other Authority" as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but Justice S.B. Sinha, in the case of Tapan Kr. Banerjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1995(2) CLJ 415 had taken a contrary view, thus necessitating Justice D.P. Kundu, based on the aforesaid difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of this court, to make a reference to the larger Bench for resolving this controversy. It is in this background that this writ application has come up for hearing before the Division Bench to decide the question whether the respondent Westinghouse Saxby Farmers Ltd. is "other Authority" or "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The respondent Company was incorporated in 1923 and has been a manufacturer of brakes, signalling equipments and other related items. In 1969 the Government of West Bengal purchased 51% shares in the said Company. Thereafter the Government of West Bengal advanced loans to the Company which were later on converted into equity shares. As at present it is the admitted case of the parties that the Government of West Bengal holds 81.75% shares in the said Company and that remaining 12.15% shares are held by Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd., a Company incorporated in England. It is also undisputed that the Government's representatives in the Board of Directors of the Company are nominated by the Governor of West Bengal, but the management of the Company is being carried on according to the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association of the Company as per the terms of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company receives loans from the Government from time to time but does not receive any subsidies.

(3.) It is also the admitted case of the parties that the Company is not involved in any Governmental function nor in any such manufacturing or trading activity which is monopolistic in character or which has any overriding Government consideration or effect attached to it. The parties agree that the nature of the manufacturing activity carried on by the Company, viz. the production of brakes, signalling equipments and other related items is such which is common to many other manufacturers in the private sectors. For instance, the parties agree that Escorts Limited, Recon Engineering Company, Elbee, Simens India Ltd., Crompton Greaves Limited etc. are some of the leading manufacturers in the country who also deal with the same items and who are competitors of the respondent-Company. Actually it is the common case of the parties that as compared to these manufacturers who are giants in their fields, respondent Company is but a minor player.