Orissa High Court
Satyananda Mohapatra vs President Siksha O .... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4853 of 2025
Satyananda Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Panda, Adv.
-versus-
President Siksha O .... Opposite Parties
Anusandhan (SOA), BBSR Mr. P. Behera, Adv.
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No 18.03.2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner with regard to maintainability of the
Writ Petition against the Opp. Parties.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in
support of maintainability of the Writ Petition relied on
two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
1. Dr. Janet Jeyapaul Vs. SRM
University & Others, AIR 2016 SC 73
2. Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna
Jaya Vs. V.R. Rudani & Others. 1989
AIR 1607
// 2 //
4. In the case of Dr. Janet Jeyapaul, Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 15 of the said judgment has held as
follows :
15. 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. [ See M.P. Jain, The
Evolving Indian Administrative Law (1983) 226] 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 super-added 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.
***
20. 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. The form of
the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is
relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The
// 3 //
duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed
by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter
by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation
exists, mandamus cannot be denied."
19. This issue was again examined in great detail by the
Constitution Bench in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India
[Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649]
wherein the question which fell for consideration was
whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (in short
"BCCI") falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12
of the Constitution. This Court approved the ratio laid down
in Andi Mukta case [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v.
V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] but on facts of the case
held, by majority, that BCCI does not fall within the purview
of the term "State". This Court, however, laid down the
principle of law in paras 31 and 33 as under: (Zee Telefilms
Ltd. case [Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC
649] , SCC p. 682)
"31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that
the Board does discharge some duties like the
selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling
the activities of the players and others involved
in the game of cricket. These activities can be
said to be akin to public duties or State
functions and if there is any violation of any
constitutional or statutory obligation or rights
of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not
have a relief by way of a petition under Article
32. But that does not mean that the violator of
such right would go scot-free merely because it
or he is not a State. Under the Indian
jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for
the violation of a right of a citizen. Though the
remedy under Article 32 is not available, an
aggrieved party can always seek a remedy
under the ordinary course of law or by way of a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, which is much wider than Article
32.
***
33. Thus, it is clear that when a private body
exercises its public functions even if it is not a
State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not
only under the ordinary law but also under the
// 4 //
Constitution, by way of a writ petition under
Article 226."
5. In the case of Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya, Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as follows:
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. The form of the body
concerned is not very much relevant. What is
relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the
body. The duty must be judged in the light of
positive obligation owed by the person or
authority to the affected party. No matter by
what means the duty is imposed, if a positive
obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.
In Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual
[(1969) 1 SCC 585 : (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 body. It was
observed: (SCC p. 589, para 6 : SCR p. 778)
"It is, however, not necessary that the person or
the authority on whom the statutory duty is
imposed need be a public official or an official
body. A niandamus can issue, for instance, to an
official of a society to compel him to carry out the
terms of the statute under or by which the
society is constituted or governed and also to
companies or corporations to carry out duties
placed on them by the statutes authorising their
undertakings. A mandamus would also lie
// 5 //
against a company constituted by a statute for
the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities.
(Cf. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol.
II, p. 52 and onwards.)"
Here again we may point out that
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." [ Judicial Review of
Administrative Action, 4th Edn., p. 540] We
share this view. The judicial control over the fast
expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of
the people should not be put into watertight
compartment. 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.
6. This Court placing reliance on the aforesaid two
decisions, is inclined to issue notice to the Opp.
Parties.
7. Since Mr. Pravakar Behera, learned counsel
contended that he has instruction to appear on behalf
of the Opp. Parties, no notice need be issued to the
Opp. Parties. Let two extra copies of the Writ Petition
be served on Mr. P. Behera by tomorrow (19.03.2025).
// 6 //
8. On the request made by Mr. P. Behera, list this
matter in the week commencing 5th May, 2025.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 21-Mar-2025 18:16:17
