JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue rule. With consent of counsel for the parties the matter was heard for final disposal.
2. The petitioner claims directions to the respondents to remove his lock and the ambulance parked at service outlet namely Knick Knack.
3. The petitioner was inducted by the respondent, All India Women’s Conference sometime in 1991 to operate on “No profit No Loss” basis, a kiosk to cater to the needs of working women residing in the hostel. As a result she opened an outlet known as “Knick Knack” and started retailing items of daily use for the benefit of such hostel residents. It is not in dispute that she occupied the premises all these years. In this background on 9.12.2005, the respondent issued a letter calling upon her to pay Rs. 750/- per quarter as donation excluding maintenance charges. This demand was reiterated on 7.10.2005 and 29.3.2006.
4. On 3.7.2006 the respondent issued a letter inter alia alleging as follows:
In 1995, you have given an undertaking to AIWC that you will handover the possession of Knick Knack and vacate the premises before 31.12.1995 through its Secretary General.
AIWC has under its discretionary power given you extension from year to year. Thus you are well aware that you were never given any understanding that you will be given the charge to run Knick Knack for your lifetime.
You are neither an employee of AWIC nor are you working in a project. You have been, off and on, given a token amount as donation to AIWC. The said donation cannot be called as ‘User’ amount.
As the Knick Knack premises are required for AIWC work and has to be remodeled, you are requested to vacate the premises by 31st July, 2006. Whatever stock is left over will be handed over to AIWC and adjustment will be make. This notice is final and if the said premises are not handed over at the expiry of 31st July, 2006 we shall be constrained to take suitable action.
5. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel contended that the respondents cannot now prevent the petitioner from carrying out her legitimate trading activity which is providing livelihood to her. He relied upon copies of receipts issued by the respondent on various dates between 1999 and 2002 and submitted that the nature of her possession has crystallized to something more than a license. Counsel submitted that the initial undertaking furnished by the petitioner in 1991 had lost relevance and that the respondents cannot; consistent with the mandate under Article 14, evict the petitioner.
6. Ms. Suchitra A. Chitale, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable because the All India Women’s Conference is neither a State nor is a public authority or body answering the description of a State nor is it performing any public function so as to attract the writ jurisdiction of this Court. She relied upon the aims and objects of the organization (which is a registered society) contained in Article 2 of its Constitution. It was contended that the society is functioning on the basis of its own rules and is not recipient of any State aid, and there is no element of a State control. Counsel also contended that the nature of duties performed by the society cannot be characterized as public functions so as to attract jurisdiction of this Court.
7. On the merits it was contended that the petitioner was permitted to operate the kiosk on license basis she had submitted an undertaking that she would vacate the premises on 31.12.1995. However, that undertaking could not be enforced due to the change of office bearers and that the document was not available at the relevant time. Counsel contended that the petitioner has not established any legal right to continue in the premises. In these circumstances no relief should be granted by the court.
8. The above narrative would disclose that the respondent is not performing any public function. It was not seriously contended that the respondent is a State or is engaged in any public activity could characterize as a State. The only submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the building used by the respondent has been substantially constructed with the funds of the Central Government, to the extent of 75%.
9. Now it is well settled that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court though expanded by judicial interpretation, is defined by the nature of the activity or the impugned order. If the nature of the activity of the body, against which relief is sought, answers broadly the description of a public function, in the sense understood by several judgments of the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction is available. In other classes of disputes which are entertained the court should be satisfied that there is a public law element to the dispute needing jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. I am satisfied that neither of these are present in the present case.
10. As far as the merits are concerned the petitioner admittedly had executed an undertaking/agreement sometime in 1991 that is to the following effect:
UNDERTAKING
Miss Kamla Kapoor daughter of Shri Ramlal Kapoor, resident of 8, Tansen Marg, Bangali Market, New Delhi-110 001 hereby give this irrevocable undertaking to the All India Women’s Conference as under:
I will run the shop in the AIWC Complex, 6, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi – 110001 on the following conditions:
AIWC will provide free the space presently known as Knick Knack in the Complex;
Only quality articles of day to day use by the residents of the complex will be kept by me in the Counter;
The rates of the articles will not be more than those prevailing in the Super Bazar and Kendriya Bhandar stores in New Delhi;
The rates will be displayed prominently;
No superious or sub-standard articles will be sold and in case it is found that the sub-standard articles or superious articles are sold at Counter may be closed by AIWC without any compensation to me;
I will vacate the premises known as Knick Knack Counter before 31.12.1995 and hand-over the vacant possession to AIWC through its Secretary-General.
11. In view of the above the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate her locus standi to enforce a public right before this Court. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that this Court should not entertain this petition.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.