K.K.Saksena v. International Commission on Ir

SANJIV KHANNA, J. Dk/nm/kapil

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: February 7, 2011 Judgment Delivered on: April 25, 2011 + LPA No. 554 Of 2006 K.K. Saksena ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate. Versus International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Vernika Tomar and Ms. Alka Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this intra-Court appeal which is preferred against the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1846/2006, the seminal issue whether the respondent – International Commission of Irrigation and Drainage (hereinafter referred to as "ICID") is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and further if the said organization is not treated as a State and other authority its actions will be amenable for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the foundation that it performs public duty, emerges for consideration. 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the appellant was appointed on 20.1.1997 as Secretary, ICID. On 8.1.1999, a letter was issued by the Secretary General relating to the role and responsibility in respect of the post. Thereafter, on 11.8.1999, the Secretary General sent a fax message from Stockholm directing him to look after day to day work during his absence for the conference at Granada and shortly after, on 15.8.1999, a communication was issued by the Secretary General terminating the services of the appellant. On 19.8.1999, the appellant claimed three months" salary as per the rules as also payment for provident fund. Later on, he requested for revocation of the order of termination and when no response was shown, a reminder was sent on 2.9.1999 and on 16.10.1999, a representation was made to the Secretary General to review the termination order and reinstate him but the same fell on deaf ears. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said action, the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court contending, inter alia, that the action of the ICID is arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was urged that ICID is a State and other authority within the meaning of the expression under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and further it is involved in performing public duty. It was averred that the ICID is under the Government control and the criteria and test set out for determining whether a corporation or society is a State or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is satisfied inasmuch as the ICID was established by the Central Government by giving a grant of Rs.15,000 in 1950; that there are instances when the Government officers had come on deputation to the society; that the Central Government has been paying the subscription for administrative and other functions of ICID and, hence, the financial control rests with the Government; that the staffing pattern of the ICID is in accord with the line of the Government; that the ICID has monopoly status since it is the only society established by the Government of India to bring together information on irrigation from India and outside; that the Government provides to it irrigation related information generated in the country and uses public cost and also uses information pulled by it for Government irrigation works; and that the President or Vice-President in-charge of the central office of the society is a Government officer and the officers of the Central Government are ex-officio Secretary General though they do not draw salary from ICID. It was also contended that the term "other authority" used in Article 226 of the Constitution is of much wider connotation and even if it is held that th