Article 12 State Test and writ maintainability fail against cooperative mill lacking deep governmental control and public duty

A cooperative mill was held not to be State or an authority under Article 12 because the record did not show governmental ownership, deep and pervasive control, State funding meeting almost the whole expenditure, or a State-conferred monopoly. A writ under Article 226 was also unavailable against the mill on a public-duty theory, because manufacture and sale of sugar was not treated as a public function. The writ petitions further failed because key service facts, including completion of 240 days and employee status, were seriously disputed and were fit for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cooperative mill was an authority or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be maintained against the mill on the ground of public duty; (iii) whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of disputed questions of fact and the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): whether the cooperative mill was an authority or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The decisive factors for treating a body as an instrumentality or agency of the State are governmental ownership, financial support, monopoly status, deep and pervasive control, public importance of functions, and transfer of a governmental department. The form of the body, whether society or company, is not conclusive. On the facts, the State did not hold the entire share capital, there was no showing that State funding met almost the whole expenditure, the mill had no State-conferred monopoly, the management was dominated by non-government members, the Government had no controlling power over policy, and the federation's communication was merely advisory. These features negatived deep and pervasive State control.

Conclusion: The mill was not an authority or State under Article 12.

Issue (ii): whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be maintained against the mill on the ground of public duty.

Analysis: Mandamus against a private body is available only where the body performs a public function or discharges a public duty. Manufacture and sale of sugar by the mill did not constitute a public function on the principles governing writ jurisdiction. The absence of State character did not by itself permit invocation of Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of public duty.

Issue (iii): whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of disputed questions of fact and the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The parties were in serious dispute on foundational facts, including whether the workmen had completed 240 days of service and whether they were permanent or seasonal employees. Such disputed questions could not be satisfactorily resolved in writ proceedings and were matters for adjudication under the industrial dispute mechanism provided by statute.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the parties had to pursue the statutory industrial dispute remedy.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, and the controversy was left to be resolved through adjudication under the industrial dispute framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A body is State under Article 12 only when the cumulative features show real governmental control and character, and writ jurisdiction against a non-State private body lies only where it performs a public duty; disputed service-related facts must ordinarily be left to the statutory industrial forum.

---