- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5th of February 2008 rendered in Writ Petition No.26 of 2008. The petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of a contract in favour of Respondent No.4 (in the writ petition).
(2.) When the matter came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, a preliminary objection was raised that the respondent Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. would not fall within the definition of 'State' as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anupam Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors., 1991 2 CalHN 451. The Trial Court dismissed the Writ petition after noticing the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the view taken by the Division Bench would not be good law any longer in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., 2002 5 SCC 111. The Trial Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations :- " This Court has perused the pleadings in the petition. The pleadings appear to be absolutely insufficient for arriving at a decision on the point as to whether Andrew Yule is a 'State' or not upon application of the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra). The extent of administrative, financial and functional control exercised by the Central Government over Andrew Yule has not been indicated in the petition. In its absence, this Court is unable to embark on an investigation as to whether Andrew Yule is a 'State' or not." . . However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appropriate Court for damages, if so advised."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench in the case of Anupam Ghosh (supra) has based its decision relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabhajit Tewari v. Union of India, 1975 AIR(SC) 1329. It is submitted that the ratio of law laid down in the case of Sabhajit Tewari (supra) has been subsequently diluted by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra).;