Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Narsinnghrao Shivaji Dharmaji Industrial Home for the Blind, is a charitable trust established in 1917, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It runs a school providing vocational training to visually impaired persons and has been receiving government grant since 1990 under the Government Physically Handicapped Special School Code. The respondent no.1, Suresh Dattatray Kulkarni, was appointed as Superintendent of the school. By an order dated 12th June 1999, the petitioner terminated the services of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the Divisional Welfare Officer, Mumbai, under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Divisional Welfare Officer, by order dated 30th April 2005, set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement. The petitioner challenged this appellate order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The main legal issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private charitable trust that receives government grant and is regulated by the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner argued that since it receives substantial government grant and is subject to government control, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the trust is a private entity and not 'State' under Article 12. The court analyzed the nature of the trust and held that mere receipt of grant and regulation under the Bombay Public Trust Act does not make the trust a public authority. The court observed that the trust is not created by statute nor is it under deep and pervasive control of the government. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies under the Bombay Public Trust Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability against Private Trust - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, receiving government grant for running a school for visually impaired persons, is not 'State' under Article 12 and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The mere receipt of grant and regulation under the Bombay Public Trust Act does not make the trust a public authority. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Termination of Services - Appeal under Bombay Public Trust Act - Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - The respondent employee's termination was set aside by the Divisional Welfare Officer in appeal under Section 50 of the Act. The High Court held that the writ petition challenging that order is not maintainable as the trust is not a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12. (Paras 1-10) C) Administrative Law - Government Grant - Effect on Status of Institution - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Receipt of government grant and regulation under a special statute does not transform a private charitable trust into a public authority for the purpose of writ jurisdiction. The trust remains a private entity and its actions are not subject to judicial review under Article 226. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private charitable trust which receives government grant and is subject to the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the petitioner trust is not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedies under the Bombay Public Trust Act.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not available against private charitable trust receiving government grant
- Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950 provides alternative remedy
- Termination of services by private trust not amenable to writ jurisdiction
