- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This writ petition has been moved to obtain writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8th September, 2006 by which service of the petitioner was terminated and further order directing him to vacate the residential premises alongwith other incidental prayers.
(2.) THE respondent-institution is a Christian Minority institution running a Hospital and Medical College funded by an agency domiciled in the U. S. A. called A. C. C. Corporation. Initially the hospital was managed by the Bishop Rev. Nimrod Christian and in September, 2005 the management was taken over by the aforesaid Corporation through a contract with the Bishop. THE petitioner was appointed as Physiotherapist therein in the year 1987 holding the position of Incharge of Physiotherapy department of the Hospital. According to the petitioner due to mis-management of the Corporation in running the institution and infringing the right of the hospital and college staff, the petitioner protested and as a result he became victim of the circumstances. By the non-speaking order impugned hereunder, the petitioner's service was terminated. Before entering into the factual controversy we have called upon the petitioner to establish how the present writ is maintainable since the respondent-institution is neither the State nor other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IN turn, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the various judgments to establish that the writ lies even against the private body if it discharges public duty. Therefore, we have to ascertain what is the nature of public duty herein. According to us nature and character of the duty of a private body establishes whether by such it discharges public or private duty. A part of the duty of a private body seems to be public duty when other is not. All the duties of a private body may not be discharge of public duty. The respondent being a Christian Minority Organization is imparting medical service through the hospital and college to the people. Therefore, in that way it may discharge public duty to the third parties but that does not necessary mean service contract between the management and the employee therein will be treated as public duty. INstitute is an autonomous body in that way. For an example M/s Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. being a company discharging duty of supply of electricity to the consumers, therefore, in that way such work is in the nature of rendering public duty and writ lies against it as held in 1985 (II) CHN 196 (Waldorf Restaurant & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ). But same principle cannot be applicable in respect of employer-employee relationship within the Company. Therefore, all the works of a private body cannot be regarded as discharge of public duty. In 1974 (1) SCC 717 (The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.) Nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that autonomy in administration means right to administer effectively and to manage and conduct the affairs of the institutions. The distinction is between a restriction on the right of administration and regulation prescribing the manner of administration. The right of administration is day-to-day administration. The choice in the personnel of management is the part of the administration.;