Case Note & Summary
The matter concerned four writ petitions filed by former cabin crew members of Air India Ltd. (AIL) against their former employer and the Union of India. The petitions, instituted between 14 June 2011 and 9 October 2013, arose from alleged stagnation in pay, non-promotion, anomalies in pay fixation due to the implementation of the Justice Dharmadhikari Committee report, delayed payment of wage revision arrears, and retrospective withdrawal of eight out of seventeen allowances. All petitioners had retired between 2016 and 2018. The petitions pleaded violations of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of these writ petitions, AIL was privatised, and thereafter, an objection was raised that the writ petitions had become non-maintainable. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard the four matters together on the point of maintainability. The fundamental question framed by the court was whether a writ petition must be decided on the basis of facts as they existed on the date of its institution or whether intervening or subsequent events, having a fundamental impact on the exercise of jurisdiction, may render the writ petition non-maintainable. The petitioners, through their senior counsel, argued that maintainability must be determined with reference to the date of institution. They contended that subsequent events may be taken into account only in three limited circumstances: when the original relief has become inappropriate by reason of subsequent change of circumstances; when it is necessary to shorten litigation; or when it is necessary to do complete justice between the parties. They submitted that none of these circumstances existed in the present case. They relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court, including Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, Kedar Nath Agarwal v. Dhanraji Devi, and Ishar Singh v. National Fertilizers, as well as a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Union of India. The petitioners further argued that the writ petitions were maintainable because AIL discharged public duties. They traced the history of Article 226 and relied on Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.S.J.M. Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani and Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan to submit that the phrase 'any person or authority' includes private entities performing public functions, and that the form of the body is irrelevant; what matters is the nature of the duty. The court reserved judgment on August 22 and 24, 2022, and pronounced its judgment on September 20, 2022. The provided excerpt of the judgment does not include the final operative decision or detailed reasoning beyond the preliminary framing and the petitioners' submissions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The core question was whether a writ petition has to be decided on the basis of facts as on the date of its institution or whether intervening/subsequent events like privatization of the employer may render the petition non-maintainable - Petitioners contended that maintainability must ordinarily be determined with reference to facts on the date of filing and subsequent events may be considered only if the original relief has become inappropriate, to shorten litigation, or to do complete justice - Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions including Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders and Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal; the Court considered whether the privatization of Air India Ltd. during pendency of petitions defeated maintainability (Paras 3, 10-14). B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Public Duty Doctrine - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Maintainability of Writ Against Private Entity Discharging Public Functions - Petitioners argued that Air India Ltd. discharged public duties and hence writ petitions remained maintainable even after privatization, relying on Anadi Mukta Sadguru and Binny Ltd. - It was contended that the phrase 'any person or authority' in Article 226 includes private bodies performing public functions, and the form of the body is not relevant; what matters is the nature of the duty, and if a positive obligation exists, mandamus cannot be denied (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition must be decided on the basis of facts as on the date of its institution or whether intervening/subsequent events having fundamental impact on exercise of jurisdiction may render the writ petition non-maintainable; Whether Article 226 extends to private entities discharging public duties
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition ordinarily decided on facts as of date of institution
- Subsequent events may be considered only if original relief becomes inappropriate
- to shorten litigation
- or to do complete justice
- Article 226 empowers High Court to issue writs to any person or authority including private entities discharging public duties
- Form of body not relevant
- nature of duty is relevant
- Mandamus cannot be denied if positive obligation exists
