Anadi Mukta v. V.R. Rudani: Mandamus Against Private Bodies

[Can the writ of mandamus be issued against any individual or private body?]

FACTS:

1. Appellant 1 was a public trust with other appellants as trustees. The trust was running a science college at Ahmedabad. The college had affiliation under the Gujarat University Act. The University teachers and employees were paid in the pay scale recommended by the University Grants Commission. There was some dispute between the University Area Teachers’ Association and the University about the implementation of certain pay scales. That dispute was referred to the Chancellor who gave his award in the following terms:

   • (1) That the revised pay scales as applicable to teachers who joined before 1-4- 1966, should similarly be applicable to those who joined after 1-4-1966 and they be continued even after 1-4-1971.

   • (2) That these pay scales be exclusive of dearness allowance. Therefore, fixing the pay of the teachers who joined after 1-4-1966, no portion of existing dearness allowance would be merged. However, with effect from 1-4-1971 in respect of both the categories of teachers i.e. pre-1966 and post-1966 teachers, dearness allowance was to be merged with the salary.

   • (3) That arrears for the period from 1-4-1966 to 31-3-1970 accruing due under the award were to be paid (without interest) in ten equal installments beginning from 1-4-1971.

   • (4) The award was to be given from 1-4-1970.” This award of the Chancellor was accepted by the State Government as well as by the University. The latter issued directions to all affiliated colleges to pay their teachers in terms thereof.

2. The appellants instead of implementing the award served notice of termination upon 11 teachers on the ground that they were surplus and approached the University for permission to remove them. But the Vice-Chancellor did not accede to their request.

3. The teachers waited with repeated representations only to get a negative reply and ultimately, they moved the High Court with writ petitions. The trust resisted the writ petitions on every conceivable ground and gave submissions.

4. The High Court rejected all these submissions, and accepted the writ petitions. The High Court thus directed the trust to make payments.

ISSUE:

(i) The liability of the appellants to pay compensation under Ordinance 120-E and (ii) The maintainability of the writ petition for mandamus as against the management of the college or whether the trust can be compelled to pay by a writ of mandamus?

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

1. It is argued that the management of the college being a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The contention in other words, is that the trust is a private institution against which no writ of mandamus can be issued.

2. In support of the contention, the counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court:

   • (a) Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain [(1976) 2 SCR 1006] and

   • (b) Deepak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instructions [(1987) 2 SCC 252]. In the first of the two cases, the respondent institution was a Degree College managed by a registered cooperative society. A suit was filed against the college by the dismissed principal for reinstatement. It was contended that the Executive Committee of the college which was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and affiliated to the Agra University (and subsequently to Meerut University) was a statutory body. The importance of this contention lies in the fact that in such a case, reinstatement could be ordered if the dismissal is in violation of statutory obligation. But this Court refused to accept the contention. It was observed that the management of the college was not a statutory body since it was not created by or under a statute. It was emphasised that an institution which adopts certain statutory provisions will not become a statutory body and the dismissed employee cannot enforce a contract of personal service against a non-statutory body.

CASE REFERRED TO:

In Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual [(1969) 3 SCR 773], this Court said that a mandamus can issue against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory bodies.

RATIONALE:

1. Meaning of public authorities The prerogative writ of mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty. The ‘public authority’ for them means everybody which is created by statute - and whose powers and duties are defined by statute. So government departments, local authorities, police authorities, and statutory undertakings and corporations, are all ‘public authorities’. But there is no such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ ‘in the nature of mandamus’. Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to “any person or authority”. It can be issued “for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose”.

2. Meaning of authority as stated in Article 12 and Article 226 The term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty.

3. Exceptions to writ of Mandamus If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated that the appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as government aid. Public money paid as government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. The aided institutions like government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students. They are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public character. So are the service conditions of the academic staff. When the University takes a decision regarding their pay scales, it will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the academic staff are, therefore, not purely of a private character. It has superadded protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. When there is existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party.

HELD:

Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.” The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartments. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances.

Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available ‘to reach injustice wherever it is found’. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.

We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition. 23. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed but with a direction to the appellants to pay all the amounts due to the respondents as per the judgment of the High Court.