M THAHA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL NIRD
LAWS(APH)-1992-1-6
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 28,1992

M.THAHA W/O A.THAHA Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RAJENDRA NAGAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TEKRAJ VASANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEELIMA MISRA VS. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL [REFERRED TO]
MANAK LAL ADVOCATE VS. PREM CHAND SINGHVI [REFERRED TO]
DAL AT ABASAHEB SOLUNKE VS. DRB S MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
UJJAM BAI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR VS. MOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED VS. ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THE L 1 C LIMITED THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI:THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASS II OFFICERS 0 N G C:SHYAM LAL SHARMA:THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN [REFERRED TO]
G SARANA VS. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF JUSTICE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. L V A DIXITULU:V V S KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTAR PRADESH WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. VIJAY NARAYAN VAJPAYEE [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
S S DHANOA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI [REFERRED TO]
B S MINHAS VS. INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]
P K RAMACHANDRA IYER DR Y P GUPTA DR T S RAMAN OM PRAKASH KHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OLGA TELLIS VAYYAPVRI KUPPUSAMI VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
TEKRAJ VASANDI ALIAS K L BASANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S S SODHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HASSAN ALI HI M VS. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDCN [REFERRED TO]
KONASEEMA CO OP CENTRAL BANK LTD VS. N SEETHARAMA RAJU [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These two writ petitions assail the selection and appointment of Dr. Tarun Bikar Lahiri and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh (respondents 3 in both the writ petitions) as Directors made by the National Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as 'NIRD') on different grounds. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, I intend to first dispose of the preliminary objection taken by Mr. V.V.S. Rao, the learned counsel for NIRD, that this Court has no jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the instant writ petitions as NIRD is not a 'State' within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Article 12 of the Constitution reads:
"12. Definition. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."
In this background of the definition, the contention of Mr. V. Venkataramanaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that NIRD is an instrumentality of the a State falling within the expression "other authorities occurring in the definition extracted supra.
(2.)The definition of the term 'the State' furnished at the top of Part-III coveting Fundamental rights is meant to indicate the authorities and instrumentalities functioning within or beyond the territories of India that shall act in conformity with the provisions of Part-III of the Constitution. The fundamental rights listed in Part-in of the Constitution are immune from invasion or infringement by any action of the State as defined therein. Inasmuch as ordinary law provides for protection against private action, the Constitution has provided for sufficient protection of the fundamental rights against the might of the State. The whole object of Part-in of the Constitution, in the words of Patanjali Sastri, CJ., is to provide protection for the freedoms and rights mentioned therein against arbitrary invasion by the State. Now, the argument of Mr. V.V.S. Rao is that the impugned actions in these writ petitions being by a body not falling within the definition of State as per Article 12, they amount to private actions not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.)To examine whether the expression 'other authorities' occurring in the definition covers NIRD, it is to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Smt. Ujjambai vs. State of U.P. and Electricity Board, Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal has rejected the interpretation of the expression 'other authorities' in the background of the doctrine Ejusdem Generis with Government or Legislature on the ground that in Article 12 there is no common genus running through the bodies named therein nor the bodies named could be placed in one single category. Accordingly the Supreme Court held that 'other authorities' cannot be restricted to those exercising governmental or sovereign functions only.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.