Mrs. Pallavi Bishwas v. The State of Bihar

For the Petitioners : Sri K.N.Chaubey, Sr. Advocate Sri Binay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.A.10 Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 9 02-09-2013 Heard Sri K.N. Chaubey, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Binay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.1339 of 2008 (9) dt.02-09-2013 petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A.10, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3/ the Director, Bhartiya Nritya Kala Mandir. In both the writ petitions, action taken by Respondent no.3 i.e. Bhartiya Nritya Kala Mandir has been questioned and since a preliminary objection was raised on the point of maintainability of the writ petitions against Respondent no.3, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed by this common order. In the first writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C.No.1339 of 2008, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders dated 02.09.2006 and 06.08.2008, contained in Annexures-4 and 6 respectively to the writ petition, passed by Respondent no.3 and further for direction to the Respondents not to give effect to the orders, contained in Annexures 4 and 6 to the writ petition. By Annexure- 4 i.e. order dated 02.09.2006, the appointment of the petitioner along with others was cancelled and the petitioner along with others was appointed on contract basis and by Annexure-6 to the writ petition i.e. order dated 06.08.2008, the contractual appointment of the petitioner along with others was extended from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. Though Annexure-6 was issued 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.1339 of 2008 (9) dt.02-09-2013 on 06.08.2007 and as per the said order, the contractual appointment of the petitioner was extended up to 31.03.2008, the present writ petition was filed 16.01.2008.Similarly, C.W.J.C.No.10604 of 2008, the petitioner was intimated regarding expiry of contractual appointment. In both the writ petitions, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for Respondent no.3 that since Respondent no.3 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not either administratively or financially under the control of the State Government, it may not be treated as State or other authorities under Article-12 of the Constitution of India and, as such, no writ can be issued against Respondent no.3 i.e. Bhartiya Nritya Kala Mandir. Sri K.N.Chaubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on number of Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court has tried to persuade the Court that the object of Bhartiya Nritya Kala Mandir was to advance culture in the society in the larger interest and one of the members of the society as per Memorandum of Association was Ex-Chief Minister of the State and also from time to time fund are being provided by the State Government. Accordingly, Respondent no.3 shall be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.1339 of 2008 (9) dt.02-09-2013 India. Firstly, he has relied on Seven Judges Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2002)5 SCC 111; Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. He has specifically referred to paragraph nos. 39,45,46,59 and 66 of the said Judgment. He has also referred to a Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2005)4 SCC 649; Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and he has referred to paragraph nos.22,23 and 24 of the said Judgment. Similarly, he has referred