TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt no.4. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the Karnataka Freight Movers Pvt. Ltd and claims to be a lifetime member of the respondent no.4 company, as also a member of its 'bye-laws committee'. While the respondent no.4 is a private company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 having been established, inter alia with the object to protect and promote the interests of persons engaged in the business of motor transport in the country, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are the Election Officers appointed to conduct elections for the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4 for the term 2022-24. The respondent no.4 is a private company, which had been established to cater to the needs and interests of the transporters across India. 3. An election notice for conducting elections for the post of members of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4/All India Motor Transport Congress for the term, 2021-2023 was issued on 21.10.2021 by the respondent no.1 who was appointed as the Chief Election Officer by the respondent no.4. The elections could, however, not take place in 2021 and were therefore, deferred for the term, i.e., 2022-2024. 4. On 28.02.2022, upon an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orters with a common objective to promote the transportation sector across the country. They submit that the respondent no.4 association represents the interests of only a small population of over two lakh transporters, as it has only about 6,500 members and not 50,000 members, as is sought to be contended by the petitioner. They, thus, contend that the respondent no.4 is not involved in discharging any public functions and is therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. They, therefore, pray that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. In response, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that the respondent no.4 is a charitable company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, which can, as per the Articles of Association, have upto 50,000 members, shows that it plays a pivotal role in the motor transportation fraternity. By drawing my attention to the letter head of the respondent no.4, he contends that the respondent no.4 describes itself as the Apex body of the motor transport fraternity of India, whose primary aim is to facilitate the growth and development of the motor transport sector. He,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the respondent no. 4, is to cater to the interests of the transporters across the country, and work for the development of transport industry as a whole. Whether this would imply that the respondent no. 4 is discharging any public function, is the moot question. In a country like ours with such a vast population, there are more than about 2 lakh motor transporters who are engaged in this industry, and to cater to their needs, proactive transport organizations have been established in different parts of the country. When the factual position that the respondent no.4 is representing the interests of only 6500 members/transporters, is considered with reference to the population of the country, and the number of transporters engaged in this industry, it clearly emerges that the respondent no.4 represents only the interests of a small number of transporters, which is not sufficient enough to categorize the said company as a body discharging any public function. 11. At this stage, a reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 670, wherein the Apex Court held that in order to deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on banking business, it cannot be said that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has opined that the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and other statutes have the regulatory measure to play. The activities undertaken by the respondent Society, a non-governmental organisation, do not actually partake the nature of public duty or State actions. There is absence of public element as has been stated in V.R. Rudani [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] and Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg. [K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg., (1997) 3 SCC 571 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 841] It also does not discharge duties having a positive application of public nature. It carries on voluntary activities which many a non-governmental organisations perform. The said activities cannot be stated to be remotely connected with the activities of the State. On a scrutiny of the Constitution and bye-laws, it is difficult to hold that the respondent Society has obligation to discharge certain activities which are statutory or of public character. The concept of public duty c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. Rudani [(1989) 2 SCC 691] SCC at p. 698 and VST Industries Ltd. v. Workers' Union [(2001) 1 SCC 298 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 227] ). ICRISAT has not been set up by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled. Although, it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity. The primary activity of ICRISAT is to conduct research and training programmes in the sphere of agriculture purely on a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be a public duty. Besides ICRISAT has a role which extends beyond the territorial boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit people from all over the world. While the Indian public may be the beneficiary of the activities of the Institute, it certainly cannot be said that ICRISAT owes a duty to the Indian public to provide research and training facilities. In Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.V. Imanual [(1969) 1 SCC 585 : AIR 1969 SC 1306] this Court construed Article 226 to hold that the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus "to secure the performance ....