Andrew Yule Head Office Retired Employees Association vs Union Of India & Ors

Biswanath Somadder, J

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the connected application.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 21st January, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 18957 (W) of 2018 (Andrew Yule Head Office Retired Employees Association vs. Union of India & Anr.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition purely on the ground of maintainability.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.

The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge - in the facts and circumstances of the case - could have dismissed the writ petition purely on the ground of maintainability.

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner is an association of the retired employees of Andrew Yule & Company Limited. A preliminary objection was raised by Andrew Yule & Company Limited before the learned Single Judge with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge two Division Bench decisions rendered by this Court were referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate representing Andrew Yule & Company Limited. The two decisions are as follows: -

i) Sri Anupam Ghosh versus Union of India and others, reported in (1991) 2 CHN 451 and

ii) Movewell Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and another versus The Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. and others (APOT Mo. 67 of 2008).

It was contended on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that the structure, nature and character of the company had, in the meanwhile, undergone a change. The company, as of date, can be considered as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Single Judge - while taking note of such submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner - however, proceeded to observe as follows: -

"I am impressed with the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Indeed, it appears that the structure, nature and character of the company have undergone a complete change. I would have accepted Mr. Bhattacharyya's submissions that the company as it is today is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but for the fact that the decision in Anupam Ghosh stares at my face. I am bound by the decision and by the subsequent decision of the Division Bench in the case of

Movewell Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and another versus The Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. and others which have both held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the company. Only a higher Forum can reconsider whether or not the said company is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against it."

We do not notice any palpable infirmity or perversity in respect of the above reasoning provided by the learned Single Judge while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition, which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. We hasten to add that in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, a Division Bench can be called upon primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by a learned Single Judge.

In this context, we may refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No (S). 7400-7401/2018 (Arising from SLP (C) Nos. 27450-27451/2017) Roma Sonkar versus Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission & Anr. In the scenario presented before the learned Single Judge, the decisions rendered by the two Division Benches (referred above) were squarely applicable and were staring on the face of the Court. As such, the learned Single Judge could not consider the merits of the case and purely on the ground of maintainability, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.

In such circumstances as stated above, we do not find any cogent or justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed along with the connected application.