2019 (2) TMI 1960 - SC - Indian Laws

Ramakrishna Mission Hospital not a 'State' under Article 12, not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Ramakrishna Mission and Ors. Versus Kago Kunya and Ors.

The Supreme Court held that Ramakrishna Mission Hospital does not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not amenable to ... Maintainability of the petition - Ramakrishna Mission is hospital or State within the meaning of Article 12 - Appellants fall within the description of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 or not - grant of extension of service for two years beyond the date of superannuation - whether the functions performed by the hospital are public functions, on the basis of which a writ of mandamus can lie Under Article 226 of the Constitution? HELD THAT:- This Court came to the conclusion that the service conditions of the academic staff do not partake of a private character, but are governed by a right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. A breach of the duty, it was held, would be amenable to the remedy of a writ of mandamus. While the Court recognized that 'the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting rights of people cannot be put into watertight compartments', it laid down two exceptions where the remedy of mandamus would not be available - In VST INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION AND ANR. ETC. [2000 (12) TMI 913 - SUPREME COURT], a two judge Bench of this Court held that a mere violation of the conditions of service will not provide a valid basis for the exercise of the writ jurisdiction Under Article 226, in a situation where the activity does not have the features of a public duty. In running the hospital, Ramakrishna Mission does not discharge a public function. Undoubtedly, the hospital is in receipt of some element of grant. The grants which are received by the hospital cover only a part of the expenditure. The terms of the grant do not indicate any form of governmental control in the management or day to day functioning of the hospital. The nature of the work which is rendered by Ramakrishna Mission, in general, including in relation to its activities concerning the hospital in question is purely voluntary - The mere fact that land had been provided on a concessional basis to the hospital would not by itself result in the conclusion that the hospital performs a public function. In the present case, the absence of state control in the management of the hospital has a significant bearing on our coming to the conclusion that the hospital does not come within the ambit of a public authority. The contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions. The only exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a statutory provision - It is of relevance to note that the Act was enacted to provide for the Regulation and registration of clinical establishments with a view to prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services. The Act, inter alia, stipulates conditions to be satisfied by clinical establishments for registration. However, the Act does not govern contracts of service entered into by the Hospital with respect to its employees. These fall within the ambit of purely private contracts, against which writ jurisdiction cannot lie. The sanctity of this distinction must be preserved. The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants are amenable to the writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution as an authority within the meaning of the Article - neither the Ramakrishna Mission, nor the hospital would constitute an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether Ramakrishna Mission Hospital is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.2. Whether Ramakrishna Mission Hospital is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Whether the employment conditions and termination of the first Respondent were in accordance with the Service Rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether Ramakrishna Mission Hospital is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India:The learned Single Judge initially held that Ramakrishna Mission is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. However, the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court disagreed, ruling that while the hospital performs a public duty, it does not strictly qualify as 'State' under Article 12. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, citing precedents such as Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, concluding that Ramakrishna Mission and its hospital do not fall within the description of 'State' under Article 12.2. Whether Ramakrishna Mission Hospital is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The Division Bench of the High Court held that the hospital, by performing a public duty, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. This was based on the hospital receiving state funds and performing public functions. However, the Supreme Court overturned this, emphasizing that the hospital's activities are voluntary, charitable, and not closely related to functions performed by the state in its sovereign capacity. The Court noted that the hospital receives only partial funding from the state and operates independently without state control in its management. Citing cases like Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, the Court held that mere receipt of state funds or regulation by law does not render the hospital a public authority under Article 226.3. Whether the employment conditions and termination of the first Respondent were in accordance with the Service Rules:The first Respondent contested his retirement date, arguing that his service should be counted from his substantive appointment date, not his initial joining date. The learned Single Judge directed the hospital to treat his appointment date as 31 March 1982, effectively granting him an extension of service. However, the Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue, as it primarily focused on the jurisdictional aspects. The Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition implicitly upheld the hospital's interpretation of the Service Rules, which led to the Respondent's retirement based on the completion of thirty-five years of service from his initial joining date.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that neither the Ramakrishna Mission nor its hospital constitutes an authority within the meaning of Article 226. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the first Respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between public and private functions, noting that the hospital's voluntary and charitable activities do not equate to public duties performed by the state.