TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules petitioner not a civil servant entitled to Article 311 privileges</h1> <h3>S.K. Mukherjee Versus Chemicals and Allied Products, Export Promotion Council</h3> The court determined that the respondent Council, a company under the Indian Companies Act, did not qualify as a public body or authority under Article 12 ... - Issues:1. Whether the respondent Council is a public body or a public authority under Article 12 of the ConstitutionRs.2. Whether the petitioner is a civil servant entitled to the privileges conferred by Article 311 of the ConstitutionRs.3. Whether the order made by the Secretary or the Chairman of the Council was validRs.Detailed Analysis:1. The main issue in this case was whether the respondent Council, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, could be considered a public body or a public authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the Council fell under the expression 'other authorities' in Article 12. However, the court held that the term 'other authorities' should be interpreted based on the principle of ejusdem generis, referring to public authorities and not private ones. Various legal precedents were cited to support this interpretation, emphasizing that a commercial concern or a company cannot be categorized as a public body or authority. The court examined the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Council, noting the control exercised by the Central Government but ultimately concluded that the Council did not qualify as a public body or authority.2. The next issue addressed was whether the petitioner could be considered a civil servant entitled to the privileges conferred by Article 311 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioner was employed by the Council, which was determined not to be a public body or authority. As a result, the petitioner was not classified as a civil servant governed by Article 311. The court cited previous judgments to support this conclusion, highlighting that employees of similar companies were not considered civil servants under the Constitution.3. Lastly, the validity of the order made by the Secretary or the Chairman of the Council was questioned. The petitioner argued that only the Council committees had the authority to make such orders, not the Chairman. Despite this argument, the court, based on the legal principles established in previous cases, determined that since the petitioner was not a civil servant and the Council was not a public body or authority carrying out statutory duties, the order could not be challenged through a high prerogative writ. Consequently, the court ruled against the petitioner on this preliminary point, discharging the rule and vacating any interim order, with no order as to costs.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the legal status of the respondent Council, the petitioner's classification as a civil servant, and the validity of the order issued by the Council's Secretary or Chairman. The court's analysis relied on legal interpretations, precedents, and constitutional provisions to determine the outcome of the case, ultimately dismissing the application on the preliminary point raised by the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
