Rajender Singh Negi v. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.

1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions have prayed for identical reliefs, which inter alia, includes the release of remaining terminal/retiral benefits as per the Rules, as were payable on the retirement ofthe petitioners along with interest @24% p.a.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent had taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that in terms of the law laid down by this Court in National Agricultural Co operative Marketing Federation ofIndia Ltd. Vs. Nafed Processed Food Cooperative Marketing Federation ofIndia Employees Union and Ors., 2001 (58) DRJ 799 (DB), the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation ofIndia Ltd. is not a 'State' within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution of India. That apart, there is no public law element involved in the relief sought for by the petitioners and as such, the present petitions need to be dismissed.

3. Meeting this objection of the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention tothe order ofthe Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 2544/2001 dated October 4, 2001, which was a petition filed against the order dated January 31, 2001 in LPA NO. 330/1999 passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court, wherein, the Supreme r Court on the aspect, whether the respondent herein is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, had observed that the matter needs to be dealt with bytheLarger Bench.

4. It is the case ofthe respondent herein that during the hearing before the Larger Bench, the petitioners before the Supreme Court i.e. Nafed Processed Food Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Employees Union had withdrawn the appeal. In view of the withdrawal of the appeal, the issue whether NAFED is a 'State' within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution ofIndia, could not be decided.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, the judgment of this Court in the case reported as National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. Vs. Nafed Processed Food Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Employees Union and Ors. (supra), still holds the field. It is a settled position, the respondent-organization is not a 'State' within themeaning ofArticle 12 ofthe Constitution ofIndia.

6. The reliance placed on the judgment ofthe Co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court in the case oiShri ChanderBhan Vs. DelhiState Co-operative Bank Limited, 94 (2001) DLT 726 and judgment of Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur and Anr. Vs. Steel Authority ofIndia Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1596, would not help the petitioner in view ofthe position of law referred above.

7. I note, the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions does not have public law element. It is the not the case of the petitioners that the impugned action ofthe respondent is in violation of any provision ofa Statute. The relationship is purely contractual. Inthe absence ofapublic element also, and in view ofthe judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the case of2015 (4) SCC 670, K.K.Saxena Vs. ICID wherein, in para 49, the Supreme Court has held as under, I do not think, the present writ petitions are maintainable: "49. There is yet another very significant aspect which needs to be highlighted at this juncture. Even if a body performing public duty is amenable to writjurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review, as already pointed out above. Only those decisions which have public element therein can be judicially reviewed under writ jurisdiction. In Praga Tools Corp. v. C.A. Imanual, as already discussed above, this Court held that the action challenged did not have public element and writ of mandamus could not be issued as the action was essentially ofaprivate character. That was a case where the employee concerned was seeking reinstatement toan office. "

8. Suffice to state, in view of the above, the present petitions are not maintainable. The petitions are dismissed. The petitioners would be at i X) liberty to seek appropriate remedy for appropriate relief in accordance with the law. h

V. KAMES^R RAO, J

NOVEMBER 19, 2015