Government-owned corporation not 'State' under Article 12; Petition under Article 226 dismissed for alleged violations of Article 14.

The court dismissed the petition under Article 226, stating that the government-owned corporation is not considered 'State' under Article 12, thus not subject to writ jurisdiction for alleged violations of Article 14. The court found no statutory obligation on the corporation to distribute chanks equitably. Acknowledging potential hardships, the court suggested seeking relief through administrative channels. The petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of mandamus is available against a government-owned company without statutory obligations.
2. Whether the actions of the West Bengal Small Industries Corporation Ltd. violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the petitioner has a legal right to enforce equitable distribution of chanks by the Corporation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Availability of Writ of Mandamus Against Government-Owned Company
The primary question is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against a company that is wholly owned and managed by the government but lacks statutory obligations. The court noted that the Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act and not a statutory corporation. It operates under its Memorandum and Articles of Association, which do not have statutory force. Therefore, the Corporation does not fall under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere fact that the Corporation is a government undertaking does not make it 'State' under Article 12. Consequently, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Corporation as it is a private entity in terms of statutory obligations.

Issue 2: Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
The petitioner argued that the Corporation's action of distributing chanks to only three out of 24 Co-operative Societies violated Article 14, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. The court clarified that Article 14 applies only to 'State' actions. Since the Corporation does not qualify as 'State' under Article 12, the petitioner's challenge under Article 14 must fail. The court referred to various judicial decisions to support the interpretation that only bodies exercising governmental or legislative powers fall within the definition of 'State.'

Issue 3: Legal Right to Enforce Equitable Distribution
The petitioner claimed a right to equitable distribution of chanks based on a scheme formulated by the Government of West Bengal. However, the court found that this scheme is non-statutory and does not impose any statutory obligations on the Corporation. The court examined the Memorandum of Association of the Corporation and found no provisions imposing a duty to distribute chanks equitably. The court also noted that the Corporation's assurance to supply chanks from a future consignment does not constitute a refusal. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish a legal right enforceable by mandamus.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition under Article 226, stating that the Corporation is not 'State' under Article 12 and thus not subject to writ jurisdiction for the alleged violation of Article 14. The court also found no statutory obligation on the Corporation to distribute chanks equitably. While dismissing the petition, the court acknowledged potential hardships and suggested that the petitioner might seek relief through administrative channels. The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

---