- (1.) THIS writ application is directed against an order of reversion dated October 1, 1990 as also an order dated February 23, 1991 passed by the respondent No. 2 terminating the service of the petitioner.
(2.) AT the very outset a preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of this writ application. According to him, the respondent company is not a State Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by him that no material is brought on record by the petitioner to show that the CESC Limited is a State under the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. According to him, it is a private establishment performing some statutory duty in the matter of supply of electricity under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to him, violation of any statutory provision in the matter of supply electricity is not under challenge in this writ application. According to him, the terms and conditions of the employees of the respondent company are not guided by any statutory provisions. They are the employees of a private establishment. Therefore, no application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable challenging the action on the part of the respondent authority against any disciplinary action taken against its employees. Mr. Sengupta also submits that the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit to this writ application are not admitted by the respondents. Mr. Sengupta relies upon the final orders dated March 20, 2003 passed in the matter of Joyram Rabidas v. Calcutta Electric Supply Company Limited (In Re : W.P. No. 3888(W) of 2003) and the final order dated March 15, 2004 passed in W.P. No. 3192(W) of 2004 in support of his above submissions.
(3.) ON the other hand it is submitted by Mr. Milon Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the respondent company is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the respondent company renders public utility services under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it enjoys monopoly status in respect of certain area within the State of West Bengal. According to him, the respondent company is a licencee under the West Bengal State Electricity Board. It is engaged in generating and selling electricity. Drawing the attention of this Court towards supplementary affidavit to the writ application filed by the petitioner it is submitted by him that the respondent company received loan and subsidies from Central and State Governments. It is also submitted by him that a considerable amount of share capital has been invested by the State Government in the respondent company. According to him, there is a deep and pervasive control of the State of West Bengal over the respondent company, It is also submitted by him that the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association all have not been produced by the respondent company before this Court to enable this Court to examine the question of deep and pervasive control of the State over the respondent company. Mr. Bhattacharjee relies upon the decisions of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court,487; Pradip Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. reported in (2002)5, Supreme Court Cases, 111; Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 1607 ; Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. reported in (1990)3 Supreme Court Cases, 752; Zee Telefilms Limited v. Union of India reported in (2005)4, Supreme Court Cases, 649 and Kelvin Jute Company Limited v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal & Ors. reported in (2006)2 Cal HN 358 in support of his above submission.;