Private club not treated as State under Article 12; mandamus cannot compel prosecution of office-bearers.

A private club constituted as a company limited by guarantee and run under its own charter was found not to be 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 because it lacked financial, administrative, and pervasive government control. Government nominees on the managing body and a lease of government land were held insufficient to convert the club into an instrumentality of the State, and its recreational facilities for members were not treated as a public duty. A writ of mandamus also could not be used to compel prosecution of office-bearers, since initiation of prosecution rests with the competent statutory authorities and lies outside private litigants' control.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Delhi Golf Club was 'State', 'other authority', or otherwise amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel prosecution of DGC office-bearers for alleged statutory violations.

Issue (i): whether Delhi Golf Club was 'State', 'other authority', or otherwise amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled tests on Article 12, including financial, functional, and administrative domination, deep and pervasive control, and whether the body performs public functions or public duties. DGC was found to be a private club, constituted as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act, governed by its own memorandum and articles, funded through membership subscriptions and club revenues, and not financially or administratively controlled by the Government. The mere presence of government-nominated members and the lease of land from the Government did not convert the club into State or an instrumentality of State. The recreational activity of providing golf facilities to members was held not to amount to a public function akin to a sovereign or public duty.

Conclusion: DGC was held not to be 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 and not amenable to writ jurisdiction on that basis; the plea on maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel prosecution of DGC office-bearers for alleged statutory violations.

Analysis: The Court held that initiation of prosecution lies within the statutory discretion of the competent authorities and cannot be commanded by mandamus at the instance of private litigants. The statutory regimes invoked by the petitioners already provided their own enforcement mechanisms, and the Court declined to convert writ jurisdiction into a device for directing criminal or regulatory prosecution. Since the petitions were not entertained on maintainability, the alleged labour-law and disaster-management violations were not examined on merits.

Conclusion: No mandamus for prosecution was maintainable; the prayer for coercive prosecutorial directions was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were held not maintainable against DGC in writ jurisdiction, and the requested prosecutorial directions were also declined, leaving the petitioners to pursue other remedies available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A private club which is neither financially nor administratively dominated by the Government and which only provides recreation to a restricted membership does not become 'State' or an 'authority' merely because government nominees sit on its managing body or because it occupies government-leased land; a writ of mandamus lies only to enforce public or statutory duty and cannot be used to compel prosecution.

---