Name: K.K. Saksena vs International Commission of Irrigation & Drainage
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11499 OF 2014
Date of Judgement: December 18, 2014
Appellant: K.K. Saksena
Respondent: International Commission of Irrigation & Drainage
Relevant Cases:
- Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors.
- G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute & Anr.
- Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors.
Facts:
1. The Appellant was appointed to the post of Secretary, ICID, vide letter of appointment. Pursuant to that letter, he joined the services in ICID. Afterwards, his services were terminated on the ground that he is no longer required by the ICID.
2. The Appellant was given two cheques in the sum of ₹77,388/- and ₹98,141.50/- towards three months Basic pay as per the notice and the dues towards contributory provident fund respectively.
3. The Appellant requested for revocation of the order of termination. As he did not receive any response towards the requests, he approached the High Court by filing Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the termination of his services by the ICID was unreasonable, thus, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue involved:
- Whether Article 14 was violated or the Appellant was entitled to file a Writ under Article 226 in the context of the above facts?
Obiter Dicta:
As per the Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., the Court held that, “The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against:
- the State Government
- an authority
- a statutory body
- an agency of the State
- a company which is financed and owned by the State
- a private body run substantially on State funding
- a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature and
- a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.”
Rationale:
1. In G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute & Anr., the Court held that the main activity of ICRISAT is to conduct research and training programmes in the field of agriculture on a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be a public duty. Besides ICRISAT has a role which extends beyond the territorial boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit people from all over the world. While the Indian public may be the beneficiary of the activities of the institute, it certainly cannot be said that the ICRISAT owes a duty to the Indian public to provide research and training facilities.
2. In the Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors., the Court held that the action challenged did not have public element and Writ of Mandamus could not be issued as the action was essentially of a private character. That was a case where the concerned employee was seeking restoration to an office.
3. Therefore the Court held that, ICID is not discharging any public duty, it is clear that the impugned action does not involve public law element and no ‘Public law rights’ have accrued in favour of the Appellant which are violated.
Judgement:
The appeal, is accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Conclusion:
The Appellant in this case filed a petition as per Article 226 of Indian constitution, challenging his termination from ICID, on the ground that the termination was unreasonable and violates Qrticle 14.
The court dismissed his appeal referring the precedents and states that since ICID doesn’t falls in the category of the state, as per Qrticle 12 and is not discharging any public duty. The Appellant is not entitled to file any petition against it under the Article 226.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 14, 2022 at 22:30 IST