Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) The petitioner was working with the respondent-Society. While he was working an order was passed by the respondent-Society, terminating his services. Being aggrieved by the termination, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents has urged by way of preliminary objections that the respondent-Society is a registered Society, which is a private body, unconcerned with any Government agency. In this view of the matter, his objection is that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents are not covered under the definition of "State" given under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, to meet this argument of counsel for the respondents, urged that under Chapter III of the Constitution of India there are certain fundamental rights which are enforced not only against 'State' but against individuals as well. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on Article 15(2) of the Constitution wherein, he alleges, that no citizen shall, on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any one of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment etc. His case is that access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, if refused to an individual then the refuser of such facility is to be proceeded against and not the Stale. Similarly, he submitted that under Article 19(1) of the Constitution freedom of speech and expression, assembly, formation of Association or Union and other kind of freedoms are, not only to be enforced against the State but some limes they are required to be enforced against individual(s) as well. On the same lines, he wants to urge that under Art. 21 of the Constitution where a person is deprived of his life and personal liberty by individual(s), he has a right to approach this Court for redress even against a private person. Under Art. 24 of the Constitution, his contention is that the child labour is not only prohibited for the State but also against private employers. The case of the petitioner is that fundamental rights which are to be enforced against individuals can only be enforced against individuals and there is no warrant in the Constitution that such rights can only be exercised against the State and not against other individuals.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards Art. 226 of the Constitution wherein in clause (1) exercise of the jurisdiction has been directed against a person or authority and also including, in appropriate cases, against the Government. His case is that Art. 226 of the Constitution primarily means against a person or authority and in appropriate case against the Government. Therefore, the initial thrust of exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution is against a person. The directions and orders which are liable to be issued under Art. 226 of the Constitution are of plenary character and they are not confined to any limited meaning.;