Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.

v Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, 20 February, 2013: The appellant is a

public limited company involved in making gas cylinders, incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956. The shares of the company were originally held by the Indo Burma
Co. Ltd., but subsequently in 2001, its equity shares was transferred to a Govt. company in
which 59% shares are held by the Government and 61% by a private company. The
respondents- employees joined the services of the company whose services were terminated
after 6 years, without assigning any reason. The respondent challenged the said termination
by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The appellant company contended that it was not
an authority within A. 12 of the Constitution and thus a writ petition against it was not
maintainable.
Held: Though majority of the shares are held by the private company, the company is
essentially performing a public function. All matters of policy and management issues are
governed by the Central Government. The Central Govt. has complete control over
appointment of the directors, and the appellant company is under an obligation to submit its
yearly performance reports to the Government of India. In order to determine whether the
appellant company is an authority under A. 12, we have considered factors like the formation
of the company, functions, management and control and the cumulative effect is that these
factors render it as an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. v UOI, 17 April, 2013: In 1947, Indian Radio and
Telecommunication, operating Indias external telecommunication service was taken over by
Govt. and a new department was created known as Overseas Communication Service. In
1986, the Government transferred the department to a private company named as Videsh
Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL). The appellants- employees were appointed as engineer in
the company. Their services were now to be determined in accordance with the rules of
services of VSNL.
Held: As VSNL is no more controlled by the Govt. and it does not even receive any Govt.
assistance, it is not an authority under A. 12 and hence not amenable to writ jurisdiction of
the High Court.
Ramesh Ahluwalia v State of Punjab, 2012: The appellant was working as an administrative
officer in in the DAV Public School, Amritsar since 1983. For misconduct, without giving
any prior warnings, he was terminated from his service in 2006. He filed a writ petition
against the respondent.
Held: As the institution is an unaided, private one managed by a society it is not an
instrumentality of the State hence no writ petition can be maintained against the body. Appeal
was dismissed.
Zee Telefims Ltd. & Ors. v UOI, 2 February, 2005: There was a question regarding the
maintainability of petition against Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which was
involved in broadcasting cricket matches in India. It was contended by BCCI, that it enjoys a
monopoly status, no power is conferred on it by the Government and hence writ petition is
maintainable against it.
Held: The Court held that BCCI performs an essential public function of broadcasting cricket
matches. Also the complete power granted to the body of inviting foreign teams to play in
India and organising cricket events is due to the recognition granted by the Government of
India. Hence, BCCI is an authority under the ambit of A. 12 of the Constitution and thus a
writ petition is maintainable against it.