TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners. When this matter was taken up, a preliminary objection was taken by the other side contending that this writ petition is not maintainable against Annexure P-1. Thus, with the consent, the parties were heard only on the question of maintainability of the petition. 2. Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri M.P. Mangal submits that the respondent-Rotary International is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and if it is not State, it must be treated as "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. To elaborate this submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rotary International, South Asia Office is registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act. The aim, object and nature of activity of the Rotary Club is for common welfare of the people. Thus, it should be treated as extended arm of the State. In addition, it is submitted that the Rotary Club is engaged in the activities of public welfare and, therefore, it can be held to be a 'State' or 'authority'. 3. Learned senior co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....To elaborate, it is submitted that Annexure P-1 is issued by Rotary International. U.S. and its address is One Rotary Centre, 1560, Sherman Avenue Evanston Blinals, 60261-3698, USA. He submits that neither the said authority is properly implemented as a respondent, nor any writ would lie against this private person/body, which is situated beyond the territory of India. 6. Apart from this, it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 cannot be represented by Shri Rajkumar Tamotiya in the capacity of President. By relying on para 5.1 of the petition, it is contended that as per the pleading of writ petition itself, it is clear that the term of Rajkumar Tamotiya as elected President was only upto 30.6.2013. This petition is filed after that and, therefore, the Rotary Club cannot be represented by Shri Rajkumar Tamotiya. Secondly, it is stated that the order Annexure P-1 is issued against Shri Anil K. Sharma and Anuj K. Agrawal. The directions are issued against Dr. Deependra Kumar Tamotia in Annexure P-1. None of these persons have chosen to file this petition. The petitioner No. 2, as contended, has no locus standi and cannot be treated to be a 'person aggrieved'. 7. I have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rally speaking a writ petition is maintainable against:-(i) Government; (ii) An authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging a public duty or positive obligation of a public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under a liability to discharge any function under any statute to perform such statutory function, (see (2003) 10 SCC 733 (Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and others). In the said case the Apex Court further opined (after considering the judgment in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V.R. Rudani) that the private institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty may be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. A private body or a person is amenable to the writ jurisdiction only where it is necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. (para 33). Thus, even assuming that the writ is amenable against respondents, a writ can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 can be exercised only for enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by part III of the Constitution, the right conferred by Article 226 can be exercised for enforcement of fundamental, statutory and other legal rights also. It can be enforced "for any other purpose". Scope for 'any other purpose' is considered by Apex Court as for enforcement of any legal writ conferred by statute etc. In (2010) 3 SCC 571 (State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others) (para 57) and in Federal Bank (supra), the Apex Court opined that no writ would lie against private body except whether it has some obligation to discharge which is statutory or of public character. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the petitioner had failed to file adequate material to establish that respondent-Rotary International is a 'State', 'authority' or 'instrumentality' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Secondly, it is not established that by issuing Annexure P-1 the respondents have failed to perform any statutory obligation or discharge any statutory or public duty. It is apt to quote the impugned....