Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4260 of 2010 Petitioner :- Prince Siddhartha Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy.Higher Technology Petitioner Counsel :- R.C.Pathak Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents that no writ petition against the National Fashion
Technology College (NIFT), New Delhi lies as the same is not the State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision i.e. Pradeep Kumar
Biswas versus Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)5 SCC 111
after considering proposition of law laid down in Ajay Hasai, [supra],
B.S.Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute; (1983)4SCC 582, Central
Indland Water Transport Corpon Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986)
3 SCC 156, Tekraj Vasandi versus Union of India; (1988)1 SCC 236,
Mysore Paper Mills Limited versus Mysore Paper Mills Officers’
Association; (2002)2 SCC 167 and several other cases summed up as
under:
” The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay
Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any
one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within
the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be —
whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is
financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the
control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body
in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a
State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely
regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to
make the body a State.”
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may allowed some
time to study the case.
Let him do so and one week time is granted to the petitioner’s Counsel
for studying the case.
List in the next week.
Order Date :- 2.8.2010
lakshman