KAMESH SALAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND24 ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Union Of India And24 Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
L.S. Jamir, J. -
(1.) This writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 05.06.2014 by quashing the Order of termination of the petitioner dated 1.06.2011 issued by the Chairman of Cane and Bamboo Technology Centre and Secretary, North Eastern Council. On appeal by the Cane and Bamboo Technology Centre and Others, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 06.01.2017 passed in W.A. No. 65/2015 with WP(C) No. 5988/2014 set aside the Order of this Court dated 05.06.2014 and remanded the matter back to consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition as to whether the Cane and Bamboo Technology Centre is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or is an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. C. Chakraborty, learned counsel for all the respondents.
(3.) Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Cane and Bamboo Technology Centre (CBTC) was set up in Guwahati as a Secretariat to implement the UNDP funded project called Cane and Bamboo technology upgradation and networking. The said project was a pioneer project solely dealing with the Cane and Bamboo sector in the country. The project was implemented by UNIDO concentrating on employment generation, restoration of ecology and economic development specially to the rural poor where the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India was the Executing Agency.
The CBTC was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 21.07.2004 with representatives of the North Eastern Council and Government Officials of Nagaland, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The CBTC also receives funds from the Government of India, various State Governments and some other agencies and some Private Sector Organisations on the basis of specific projects allotted and sanctioned to CBTC by them from time to time for carrying out projects. The members of CBTC would indicate that all the members are Government servants holding responsible posts under various Governments and the restructuring of the governing body of the CBTC which was done with immediate effect from 20.07.2007 would make it clear that the CBTC is an instrumentality of the State and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Funds are allotted by the Government on a project wise basis and from the service charges, the day to day expenses and maintenance of the CBTC is made. The entire functioning of the CBTC is dependent on the service charges and from the funds allotted by the Government on project wise basis and out of the income derived by CBTC in the implementation of the projects that the payment of salaries and wages to the employees of CBTC are being made. This would indicate that most of the funding is done by the State Government and Central Government agencies. He also submits that even assuming but not admitting that CBTC is not a State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the amenability to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not strictly dependent on whether an institution is a state or an instrumentality thereof and that it depends on the nature of the duties and functions performed by the said institution. Therefore, in the present case, the CBTC performs public duties inasmuch as it is admittedly engaged for public benefits. In that view of the matter, he submits that the present writ petition is maintainable and he places reliance in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors., 2015 3 SCC 251.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.