The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumsl ances stated in the affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the 1'lth Respcndent to conduct an inspection and audit unrier the relevant provisions of the Corrpanies Act, 2013 and take appropriate act on against the erring Directors of thr: 9th Respondent-public charity (since the f ling of the writ petition, the 1 1th Respondent has already confirmed that an inspection and audit of the 7th Respondenl. under the Companies Act has been initiated). lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under {)ection '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint Advocate Cc mmission or a former judge or judges as adnrinistrator(s) to oversee Respondent lnstitutions 6 to 9 and their associated entities and further, direct the Advocate Oommission to constitute of legally compliant Boards with respective members, 'ormer trustees, and founding directors as pr::r their Articles of Association. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumst;rnces stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated. 31-12-2024 in WP.No. 26298 ol 202,4 pending the disposal of the Writ Appeal. lA NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Direct the Advocate Commissioner or a committee of retired judges to formulate a comprehensive scheme to address the grievances of displaced, illegally and arbitrarily terminated staff members, particularly class lV workers and other employees who, due to financial hardship and fear of retaliation, have been unable to seek redress through the Labour court or other legal forums, and to ensure justice is rendered to them. tA NO: 5 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Declare that the actions of the 1Oth Respondent in establishing Respondents 6 to 9 under lndian laws to fulfill public duties, and subsequently abandoning these responsibilities afier initiating a whistle blowing investigation against Respondents 1 to I and confirming malfeasance and, direct the 10th Respondent to take necessary steps to restore these institutions to their original mandate of serving public duties. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Direct Respondents No. 'l to 5 to permit the Petitioners, albng with other affected workers and their families of Respondent lnstitutions 6 to 9, who have been unjustly and arbitrarily denied entry through brute force, to freely and peacefully attend and partake in the church services conducted by Respondent No.8 within the premises/campus of. Respondent No.6, without fear, intimidation, or obstruction. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents No.'lto9: SRI A.SRINIVASULU Counsel for the Respondents No.10 : Counsel for the Respondents No.l1 : SRI A.S'VASUDEVAN Counsel for the Respondents No.12 : '- -' The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.227 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble, the Acting Chief Justice Suloy Paul) Sri .1. Sudheer, learned counsel for tl-re appellarts; Sri Prathamr:sh II mat, learned counsel representir Lg Sri A Srinivasttlu, lerrrned counsel for respondent Nos.1 tc: 9 ald Sri A.S.Vasudevan learned counsel for respondent No.11

2. Hezrrd on z dmission.

3. This lnfrci Court appeal takes exception 1o the r,rder of the learned rSingie .Iudge passed in W.P.No.26298 of 2024, dated 31 .12.2024, u'h:rebv the iearned Single Judge opin,:d that the Writ Petit-ion is r-rot maintainable. The parties have c onfined their argumenls to ttr,: question of maintainability of the Wri'- Petition. Contention of the appellants/writ petitioners:-

4. Sri J. Srr,lheer, iearned counsel for the appr:ilants/writ petitioners subnits that the Writ Petition is mainta.,nable even against zr privzrt.e entity, if it is involved in publi<r duties and performirrg the function s of public importance. It is also maintainieble if the said body/persons are acting in a nranner that affects the prLblic rights or duties. More-so, r,rhen such 2 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 body/persons are regulated or controlled by the State to a significant extent. In order to show what public dut5r/function is, it is submitted that if a private entity is discharging functions which are indeed State functions, the Writ Petition may be maintainable. For instance- (i) running educational institutions; (ii) rnanaging hospitals or health care services and (iii) providing essentia-l services like eiectricity or water.

5. The next submission is that there exists nexus between the State and private entities herein. The respondents herein are entities operating under the Government contracts, they are receiving State funds and it is a case where the Fundamental Rights are breached. In cases of violation of Fundamental Rights, the Writ Petition is entertainable. Reliance is placed on Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayant Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R.Rudanil. In support of the a-foresaid submissions, he also placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Ilwarka Nath v. Income Tax Oflicer2.

2.U.P State Cooperative Land Development Baak Ltd. ' t989 AIR sc l607 2 1965 scc online sc 6l J HA CJ (S \ P,J) &RY,J A 227 2025 v. Chandra Bhan DubeY3.

3. Zee Telefilms Ltd' w. Union of Indiaa-

4. Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivans.

5. Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM Universitf.

6. Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago KunyaT.

7. Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P'E.

8. St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargavae.

9. D. Bright ,Joseph v. Church of South India (CSI)1o.

6. It is subnritted that the learned Single Ju<13,e has not considered the pleadings and material on record :.rrLd erred in holding that Wrir Petition was not maintainable. The j rdgment of Supreme Courl in St. Mary's Education Society (r;upra) u'as considerecl by ttre Fuil Bench of Madras High Court irL D. Bright Joseph (supra) irnd in view of this judgment, the Writ l:)etition was very much maitt tainable and the learned Single judge lLas crred in not considering -he order of the Madras High Court. t 1tssel r sc<; u +t ' lzuosy + scc e+l t (zoos) c sct: o-st o lzots; to sctn to+e 'lzotsy to sc:c -:o: 3 2019 SCC Onlinc A ll 3 t3 5 ' lzoz:.1 ,t sc<: +la 10 w.P.No.i04272 of lul I olNladras High court, dated 29.02.2024 4 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 Contention of the respondents:- 7 . Per corutra, Sri Prathemesh Kamat, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 9 submits that a minute reading of reliefs claimed by the appellants/writ petitioners and the parties, vvho were impleaded shows that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no relief is due to the writ petitioners because the Writ Petition is not maintainable. To elaborate, it is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are individuals and not any statutory body. Respondent No.9 is a company. By taking this Court to the reliefs claimed, it is submitted that these reliefs could not have been granted in a Writ Petition. The Advocate Commissioner cannot be directed to be appointed in a Writ Petition to take care of activity of individuals or an institution, which does not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. Petitioner No.1/appellant No.1 approached National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') and ciaimed certain reliefs which were similar to the reliefs claimed in the present Writ Petition, but the NCLT, did not grant any relief. The NCLT passed order on 26.06.2020, which could have been assailed by frling an appeal before the concerned Appellate Tribunal. No appeal was admittedly preferred by writ petitioner 5 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J \lt A. 227 ,2025 No. 1 / appeliant llo. 1 . Writ petitioner No ' 1 though aftproached NCLT, exh,austed one remedy, but did not take the m atter any further to the Appeliate Tribunal' To short-cir':;uit that proceedings and by modifying the reliefs' the writ 1:'etitioners prayed for similirr reliefs in the Writ Petition' which '::arrnot be granted. it is further submitted that relief (c) of the Writ Petition is 8. vague and does trot specify for whom the present Writ Pt':tition was filed. In fact, 17 employees/persons were termin:rted, who independentlr' ,rssailed their termination orders r.tnder the provisions of thr: Industrial Disputes Act' 1947 ('I'D '\ct')' This writ Petit.on is r.ot filed as a Public Interest Litigation' The writ petitioners have -ro loans standi to seek alnulment of t':rmination of other ,:mplovces in a Writ Petition of th:is nature ' The writ petitioners canll'lt raise grievance relating to alleged 'riolation of Fundamental R 5ihts and other reliefs for other persons' g . So far- the relief against respondent No 1 1 is concerned' indeed hr: is a ri.'atutory authority of the Government ' but he was not uncier ary obligation to entertain ald rlecide the representation of the writ petitioners' Furthermore' respondent 6 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 No.10 is an authority situated in United Kingdom. Hence, no Writ Petition against it is maintainable.

10. Coming to relief (f), it is a relief pertaining to 'internal committee' to be constituted by the respondents. This Court cannot deal with this aspect as this aspect does not fall under writ jurisdiction. 1 1 . Since no public law element is involved and the detailed procedure is prescribed under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Writ Petition was rightly not entertained by the learned Single Judge. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society (supra).

12. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submisslons: 1- Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomasll.

2. R.S. Madireddy v. Union of Indiarz.

3. Lakhichand Marotrao Dhoble v. Joint Charity Commissioaer, Civil Lines, Nagpurl3

4. Ramakrishna Mission (supta).

5. Totaram Dasuji Rathod v. Atmaram Kisausingh " (zoo:) to scc z:: '' (2024) 6 scR 934 '' 2o2o (6) MHL 662 l HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J \ A_227 _2025 Rathodla.

6. Eknath Tukaramji Pise v. Rama Kawaduji Bhendgts.

7. South Intli.an Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Phillipto.

8. Chander .Mohan Khanna v. National Council for Education, Research and TrainingrT.

9. Samir Kumat Majumdar Vs. Union of IndiarE. 1O. State of rJttar Pradesh Vs. Nawab Hussainle.

11. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology:x'.

12. K.K, Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage 21.

13. Prakash Singh v. Union of India22.

14. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Itanij Vikas Nigam SS23.

15. CCT v. lflaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care: Ltd,.24 Reioinder submissions:-

13. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petLtioners rejoinder subrr issions urged that the Writ Pe'-ition was 1n 'o 120201 t MhLJ 922 't (2ozo) scc onl.inc Bo n 93,1 '6 2023 SCC CnLinc SC l.i5 '' (199t ) + sc,l 5ts r82O23 SCC Online SC 1182 )e(1977) 2 Supreme 3ourt Cases 8O6 20 (2OO2) 5 SCC t1l 2t (2075) 4 SCC 670 22 (20221 SCC Onlinc Del2273 ,3 (2008) 12 SCC 67 i 'o 1zozol ru srtc 6sl 8 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 maintainable and after the decision of NCLT, certain subsequent events had taken place. The order of the NCLT was not decided on merits and matter even travelled to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reserved liberty to the parties to approach appropriate forum as per law.

14. It is noteworthy that the learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the said order of the Supreme Court.

15. Both the parties have filed list of judgments

16. No other point is pressed by tJle learned cot.rnsel for the parties 17 . We have heard the parties at length and perused the material on record Findings:

18. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apposite to reproduce the relief of the writ petitioners, which reads thus: "a) Declare that Respondents 1 to 5 have no risht to hold the ofhce of trustees, directors, or office bearers in Respondent Public Charities 6 to 9, as well as other associated public charities, by virtue of their legal disqualifications and their anti-institutional conduct, which fundamentally undermines the existence and purpose of these institutions. 9 HACJ (l:iP, J) & RY, J \tllA 227 2025 b) Appelrl- an Advocate Commissroner or a former s of this Hon'ble Court as administra tors to iudee / iudse of Respondents 6 to 9 and the a ss;ociated !s4nacg-lbc -,Lffairs group, and to identify and reinstate the former .:rustees andl or four ding directors to oversee the adminis tration, ensu:ing it aligns with the purposes for which Respondents 6 to 9 were criginally established, particularly rn viet' of their public dutl, € ctivities. 1ace,l and il1eeallv c) Direct th<yAdvocate Commissioner or committee of itldges to formulate a scheme that addresses the individual gri,lva-nces terminated staff lTIr:mbers, of clis (llass IV workers and other emploYees whc,, due to severe finarLr:ial constraints and fear of retaliation, ha unable to approach the Labour Court or other courts. and to rendt:r justic: to them. 'ue dent in d) Dt:c1are llLe rnaction on the conductins l nspeclion and audit under relevant sec tions of the (lom anies Act and take approp riate action against the ndent- ublic charities 7 and 9 rtnder the Direcrtors o' Res said Act b1 holding 1lth Respondent not doing so as bad, illega l, uncorrstitutional, and contrary to the provision s of law desprte thc lact that the l't Petitioner along rvith thr':;e other founrling dir-:ctors hled complaint on 26.12.2018 and also on t8.o'7.2024 e) Declarc that the aclions o[ the IOG Respon lent in estatrlisl-rinrl Re spondents 6 to 9 under Indian laE for the purpose of fulfilling public duties and while subsr :quently abandoning these responsibilities and allou'ing Rcsoondent No. 1 to usu rp control of these charities without establishing a proper .tcco ,rntability struclure, as illegal, arbitrary to law, thercby unlermining the very purpose of these instttutions, consequentl,., direct the 1Oth Respondenl to tzrke the necessary :r1eps to revive these institutions to their original man,late of s;erving public duties. f) Declare tre creation of Respondent No.12 a sham and non- statlrtory t,ody established by Respondent No. I , rr,rndering Respondent Public Charities 6 to 9 , along '"r,rth other associated :ublic charities which are legal entities corrstituted undr:r the relevant provisions of their respecti,,e Acts subserwient to Respondent No.12, and unlawfully clevating Respondenr. No.1 as the supreme authority over z.[ these l0 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 entities are bad in law, unconstitutional, and violative of the relevant legal provisions governing such entities." (Emphasis SuPPlied) 19 Learned Single Judge framed a question regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition and answered it in relevant paragraphs, which read thus: "Is the Writ Petition maintainable in its present form ?

9. It would be evident from the prayers in the writ petition that the petitioners seek removal of the respondent Nos.1-5 who are presently Directors / Offrce Bearers/Trustees of the respondent Nos-6-9 (prayer-a); appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to act as an Administrator for managing the affairs of the responclent Nos.6-9 and for reinstating the founding Directors to oversee the administration of the Trust (prayer-b); direction on the Advocate Commissioner to formulate a scheme for addressing the individual grievance s of the staff members and employees who were allegedly illegally terminated (prayer-c); dire ction on the respondent No. 1 1 (the Regional Dircctor, South Easteru Region, Ministry of Coiporate Affairs) to take appropriate action against the Directors of the respondent Nos T and 9 (prayer-d) and direction on the respondent No. 10 to take necessary steps to revive the respondent Nos.6-9 institutions to their original mandate of serving public duties (prayer - e). Prayer f is directed against the position and powers given to the respondent No.1 and for a declaration in respect of the actions taken by the respondent No. 1 .

10. The cause of action pleaded in the writ petition and the consequential reliefs prayed for makes it clear that the petitioners have brouqht a dispute directed against individuals which is ourelv orivate and personal in nature.

11. Even a bare perusal of the writ petition wouid show that the cause of action is one of personal animosity primarily arising out of the petitioners' service being terminated by the - Directors / persons in control of the respondent Nos'6-9' The cause of action clearly lacks the accepted markers of an action t1 HACJ (IJP, J) & RY, J \vA 227 2025 withirr the l) lrameters of Article 226 of the Constj lr ition of India u'hich nust necessarily include a public elemcrt or an infraction o1 Iundamental rights guaranteed under ['a rt III of the Constitrr.ion or the complained act being in violi'Ltion of the prrnciplt:r; of natural justice: Federal Bank Ltd. Vs;. Sagar Thomas (20C3) 10 SCC 733) and Mr.R.S. Madireddy V:;. Union of Inciict ((20.21) 6 SCR 934).

12. In order to successfullv pass the test of maintzLit rabilitv, the petitiont:rs must also show that the imougned act ;s b or at thr: behcr;'. of a "State" as dehned under Article 12 of The Const,ituLior or a "Person" or "Authorilv" having the trrrppings of a State eitrer in form or in dischar of funclions o r owlnq Tl-re writ petition a positive obligation to the affected party by way of pleadings as rve11 as the lacks thesc ngredients mater-ia1 dis,: osed. n

13. 1t is u rdisputed that the respondent Nos.6-9 :rre not rnctionally or administratively doqlilatcd bv the financial1y, Government cr under the control of the Governmenl. In an legulatorv control. under a statute or otl I erwlse will not ado n the body with the trappings of a "Statt:" or an r instrrrmentaltW of a State: Pradeep Kumar Bisu,ras u. Indian Instittfie of Chemical Biology ((2OO2l 5 SCC 1l1). St. Mary's Education fbcietA Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargaua (:,1023) 4 SCC 498) reinforced the dictum that judicial revir:v, of an actiorr can only be brought within Article 22(t of the Consr,itutior if thcre is a public law elemer-rt and not for enfor,:ing a contract of personal service s,jth a further qualillcation that a conlract of personal serv:,ce inch tdes ail mattcrs relir:ing to the service o[ the employee in clud ing suspension, l.ermination, confirmation and transfer. St Mary's (supra) relieci on K.K. Saksena u. International Contnti:,,sion on Irigotion ar,rl Drainage(2ol5) 4 SCC 670) which demarcated the exceptions to a contract of personal service lrh ere the empkryee is ,r public servant or is employed by an ar.rthority withir-r the rr ealing of Article 12 of the Constitution or is a "rvorkman" rvithin the meaning of section 2(s) olThe lnrlustrial Dispr-rtcs Ac t, 1947 . Admittedly, the petitioners do not fall wilhirl the e<-:eptions carved out in K.K. Saksena (supr,r).

14. The mcre fact that the respondent No.7 is irrr Partinq education will not make the said respondent amenable to lvrit iurisdiction in the absence of a public law element v,hich is t2 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 2272025 quintessential to the maintaina biliw of the writ petition: St Mary Education Societg (supra).

15. Admittedly, the schools functioning under respondent No.2 are unaidcd private institutions a4g! come within the ambit of section 2(n)(iv) of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2OO9. Section 12(21 of the said Act clarihes that the "school" specihed under section 2(n)(iv) providing free and compulsory elementary education shall be reimbursed expenditure incurred by it by the State. It is not the petitioners' case that the respondent Nos.5-7 receive State aid or finances. Even if it is assumed that the respondent Nos.5-7 receive State aid, the case is unsubstantiated and in any event disputed by the respondents.

16. Imparting cducation, per se, will not pull the respondents within the stranglehold (in a punitive sense) of Article 226 of the Constitution unless the respondents can be shown to discharge a public duty with an attending public law element or that there is a pervasive State control in their day-to-day affairs. Although the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) opined that the tests formulated h Ajay Hasia u. Khalid Mujib Sehrauardi((1981) 1 SCC 722) are not a rigid set of principles, the question in each case would be whether the body is hnancially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government in the light of the cumulative facts as established.

17. The Court, thcrcfore, concludes that the writ petition is for settling of a personal score with a stark absence of a case being made out that the respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

18. The essential requirement of the alleged wrongdoer falling within a 'State" or a "Public Authority" is discussed in the next point. The Writ Petition is nst a Public Trust 19 . The Objects of the respondent No.6 "Operation Mobilisation India" indicate that the activities of the respondent No.6 are voluntar5r in nature with a focus on spreading the teachings of Jesus Christ. Admittedly, the respondent No.6/Trust does not receive any financial l3 H,\( J (sP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 assistancc liom the State and would, therefr)r'c, no1 fi rll within the definitic n of "State" under Article 12 of thc ConsLil.ution.

20. As stiL.cd zrbove, the cause of action plcarled revolves around pe:;onal rights and agenda and does not in.,olve any public lar., element: Ramakishna Mission V,;. Kago Kunya((2015) 16 SCC 3O3l and Lakhichand Mctrotrao Dlnble l/s. Joirtt t)|rurity Commissioner, Ciuil Lines. Naggri2)2O (6) MHi, 662). In the latter case, the Division Bencr-r of the Bombar. Hulh Court considered the objects ol a PrrLrlic Trust rn,hich er-rflligecl in religious activities to bc pr-Lr,:lv of a voluntary r ature without any financial assistzrnct iom the State. The Court opined that inculcating rcligiorrs feelings amongst rr embers of a particular commtrnity t:arnnot be equrrted to -r public function or discharge ol'ir pr-rblil duty. A public fun:tion is generally for achieving a collt:ctiv: bcnefit for the putrlrc or a section of the public with a flavorrr of social or econonLic affairs in public interest: Biirn-ry l,ta'. Vs. S. Sadctsiuan,'(2oo5) 6 SCC 657). 2 1. It is her ce clear that the respondent No-6 rloes 1( 't qualiry under th: accepted parameters of a St:I1() or an inst:umen1iiliry of the State. The reason for this vi:u' Iinds place in th,: ncxt captioned heading. The Bombir.r Public Trusts Act, 1950, specill< .llly pre Vrdq C_fo[ the rower 1(' remove a Trustee

22. The frr,-t that the respondent No.6 is rr Pub ic Trust registt:red i-rncler The Bombay Public Trusts Ar:t, l(15,0 is not disputed. liection 4 lEl of the said Act conlirrs t h( l)ou.er to instrtute a r enquiry with regard to a partictrlrrr clLariq, or a class of charities on lhe Charity Commissioncr. Sr.crion 41D delineates the procedure for suspending, rr-.p16,ying or dismissing 'lrustees. Section 47 reiterates thc pou'()r of the Charilr. Commissioner to appoint, suspcnd, rcl:love or discrarge l'rlrstees and invest properfy to neu, 'l'ruslees. Section 8() dcclares that Civil Courts slrall n,rt have jurisdictior t,o decide or deal with any question cove rt,d b1.the Act of 195C.

23. The alrove provisions of The Bomba5 publi< Trusts Act, 1950 rnakes it clear that the respondent Nr>.i;/public Trust is anrcnable to the said Act which also proviciert for the mechanisrr lor the precise relief which the pr:tition,:rs have 14 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA_227-2025 prayed for in the present writ petition. Besides, the procedure for suspension and removal of Trustees, as provided under seirtion 41D (21 of the Act, entails leading of evidence and proving of the charges framed against a Trustee along with the explanation given by the Trustee. The aforesaid matters are beyond the periphery of a writ petition: .. Totaram Dasuji Rathod Vs. Atmaram Kisansing Rathod((2o2ol I MHLI 922) and Eknath Tukaramji Pise 7s. Ramo Ka uLaduji Bhende (2O2O SCC Online Bom 93a). The importance of leading evidence and proving of the charges levelled against the Trustee was noted rn Totaram Dasuji Rathod (supra) in view of the harsh consequences of removal from the Trust.

24. The above discussion would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of Lhe Court despite a precise statutory remedy being available to the petitioners under The Bombay Trusts Act, 1950. This also means that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available to them.

25. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 demonstrates that the petitioners' cause can very well be espoused before the Charity Commissioner and othcr officers under the Act. The writ petition does not disclose any challenge to the vires of any statute or any allegation of violalion of fundamental rights or the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Court does not find any ground to entertain lhe writ petition despite the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy: South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Naueen Matheu Philip(2o23 SCC OnLine SC 435). This decision relied on V4tirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trode Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1) and Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.((2OO3) 2 SCC 1O7)) where the Supreme Court laid down the proposition that availability of alternative remedy may not be an absolute bar in certain contingencies. The Writ Petition is in anv event hit bv the Principies of Res Judicata / Constructive Res Judicata

26. TLre following facts are undisputed in respect of the c-aptioned heading. ]T l5 HACJ (SIP,.J) & RY, J It\L A 227 2025 27 . T)'Le frrst petitioner had filed a Company Pctitior:, 'ieeking identica.l relurf against the respondents for oppressir tn and mismrenagenr:nt under sections 241 and 245 of The Companies l\,rt, 2O13 which included the relief for lermination or m,rdificat icn of Agreements under section 243 ol 'I'he Companies l\,tt, 2O 13.

28. The Corlpany Petition (C.P.No.60/2a1/HDB/2t)19) u'as dismissed cn merits by the NCLT, Hyderal;ad Bcr rch on 22.06.2020. The findings in the order of dismissai nclude that the prtitioner failed to prove any oppression and managemen - into the affairs of the Company/ Operatirlr Mercy India Foundation (the respondent No.7 herein) and als I f:riled to fik doclr rrentary proof for considering the prayr:r in rhe Company Pe tition. Incidentally, the petitioner also prerycd for an orler of lrvestigation into the affairs of the Comlta ny and to suspend t-re Board and to appoint a Commissioncr. l'he first petitioncr hcrein was the first petitioner in the C<.,mpany Petition.

29. 1-he petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein approa<'l-r:d the Industrial Tr-ibunal along with 18 other employees aga nst the termir-ration of their employment. The rt:quest lor re- instatement was rejected by the Industrial Tribunrrl by an order dated O .O7 .2023. The pe titioner No. 1 also fil<:cl a u,rit pctition (W.l).No.36200 of 20221 challenging his terrrrination bcfort: this C ourt, said writ petition is pending zrs on cia-e. 3O. Tl-ris Corr -t therefore hnds substance in the conten,ions of the ansrvcrinll respondents that the multiple actions tn,jtituted by thr: petiticner No. 1 for similar relief and the findin g:; of the NCLT and lrrdustrial Tribunal attract the principlt:s of res ludicctta ani constructive res judicota: State o-f Uttan. Pradesh Vs. Nawab ?ussain (1977) 2 Supreme Court Case.; 8O6), Samir Maju,ttdar Vs. Union of India(2 02 3 SCC Ottl,ine SC 1182). A tlrree Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the former decis i rn explained tonstructive res judicatct' a::i a rule u,hiclL postr- lates that if a plea could have br:en takt:n bv a party in an ,l.rrlier proceeding, he/she would not be pe rmitted to tal<e tha: plea against the same party in a subsequent proce:ding founded on the same cause of action. Tl-rc rule is anchored orL public policy as no party can be encotrrilged to institrrte ont: proceeding after another and urge new glrounds every time. ,lmalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Janapada Sabha, t6 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J w A_227 2025 Chhindutara(AlR 1964 SC 1013), categorically held that the principle of res judicata is also applicable to writ petitions. 3 1 . The above facts would indicate that the present writ petition has been filed beyond the statutory time period provided under The Companies Act, 2O13 for filing an Appeal from an order of the NCLT to NCLAT. The order of the NCLT, Hyderabad dismissing the Company Petition on 22.06.2O2O means that the challenge to the said order could only have been hled within 45 + 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order of NCLT was made available to the petitioner under section 421(31 read with the proviso to The Companies Act, 2013.

32. It is evident that the petitioners seek to re agitate the very same points in the writ petition which were raised before the NCLT without complying with the timelincs of the challenge provided under The Companies Act, 2O13. Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to entertain belated claims unless the petitioners offcr a credible explanation. The writ petition is not maintainable asainst a Societv

33. The respondent No.B/Good Shepherd Community Society is registered under The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 whose objects include imparting spiritual teachings, setting up primary health and literary centcrs. Such a society cannot fall within the definition of "State" within thc meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution o[ India. A writ pelition is also not maintainable against a Co-operative Society: Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. National Council of Educational((1991) 4 Supreme Court Coses 578). The Supreme Court in this case agreed with the contention that NCERT is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

34. The respondent No.10/O.M International situated in United Kingdom is admittedly a foreign entity which has no control over or connection with the respondents. The respondent No.12/Bishops Council and Synod is also not a legal or statutory entily incorporated under any .law. Its constitution is approved by the Council of Bishops on 31.O7.2014 with four Bishops including a Presiding Bishop. It is the headquarters of the Good Shepherd Community Church. \7 HACJ (l.iP,.l) & RY, J \'"1A 227 2025

35. Irr Prrzkc..;h Singh Vs. [Jnion of India (2022) SCC On line Del 2213,t, a Dir ision Bench of the Delhi High Court held that Lhe responrlent \o.2 therein i.e., Agence France Press is aLr enlity ol' Frirnce arLrl c:rnnot be termed as "State" uncle r Artic Le 12 of the Constitr tion of India and therefore is not atncnabie to Writ jurisciction.

36. I'he Cor, rt a.lso agrees with the contentions rarscd on bchall of tlr,: rcspondents lhat the writ pclition c()nccrns disputccl qlLcslions of fact since the petitiotrcrs ha,re only proce ede d or thc allegations of mismanagemelrt ancl lorrupt pract ccs .,r.lrrch have been disputed by the responden's. 1'he nature of :rllcgattions require evidence and t:,rnclusive proof whictr t-he Wril Court is not equipped to deal ri'ith: litate' of uttar Prade-sl1 Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajga Kanij Vikcts Nigam SS((2r)08) 1t' S(:(- 675).

37. !'he dr cisions cited on behalf of thc petiri,rl er .tre distinguisha l,le on facts as well as in law. D.Biqht Joseph Vs. Chur<'h of >ottth India(W.P.No.3O4272 of 2O22) inwivecl a challr'nge tc thc clection of a mernber of th() Synocl at Lhe instance of ir r clected member. The Supreme Court h,.:ld that t l-rc u rit pctii ion was maintainable as the institutron in that case *':ts cli ; 'harging a public duty. In the prescnt .zrse, lhe rcliefs claim : :1 :rre entirely in the realm of priv:r te la"r' r tnd Lhe pelitioners, rs ex-employees, are seeking re inslat.ement. Rogcltan Abttharn Vs. State of U.P. (2O19 SCC t)nline Atl 3935) u,a s i onside r ccl in St.Mary's Education Societll lsupra, u'herc thc Suprer r C<;urt held that a writ petition against an educa.tiorral institution cannot be maintained if thcr.: is no direct nexus bctrveen the act complained of eurd disctrargc of publir: clutv Artdi Mukta Sadgunt Shree Muktajee Vantlos Sutanti Suu'un.a Jayanti Mahotsau Smorak Trusl I,'s. I,'. R. Rudani((1989) 2 SCC 691) was a case involving a public trust running a cc llcge affrliated to the Gujarat University rvilh a dispute of prr' scales in relation to the governirtg provir;ions of thc Unir.ersit, Grants Commission. Godrej Sctra Lee' ),td. Vs. Excise and iiuation Officer-cum-Assessing Auth.onty (2 02 3 SCC On.Line SS 95/ <:or-rsidered the issue of an alternative rernedl- of appeal under scction 33 of the Haryana Vaiue Added lax Act, 2OO3. The Siupreme Court held that a writ petition can be maintained t o deal r,r.ith a pure question ,tf lav Ccspite existence o1' tlrc alternative remedy." l8 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 (Emphasis Supplied)

20. The relief (a) is directed against respondent Nos.1 to 5. The said respondents are impleaded in their private capacity. The Writ Petition is not maintainable against the said private persons.

21. So far relief (b) 1S concerned, it is prayed that a former judge/judges of the High Court be appointed as administrator/s to manage affairs of respondent Nos.6 to 9 ard the associated group. It is also prayed to reinstate former Trustees/ Directors to oversee the administration. The relief prayed before the NCLT in case C.P.No.6O/241 /HDBl2Ol9, wherein writ petitioner No.1 herein was applicant, is as under: " 1 . Under consideration is a Company petition filed under Section 213 and 241 of the Companies Act, 2O13 (hereinafter called as Act, 2013') alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s.Operational Mercy India Foundation (hereinafter called as the 'Company), inter-alia seeking following reliefs: i. To order investigation into the affairs of the Company under Section 2 13 of the Companies Act, 20 13; ii. To grant appropriate reliefs in terms of Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013; iii. As al interim measure pending the investigation, to suspend the Board and appoint a Commissioner iv. To freeze all assets of the Company pending investigation and resolution of the cases referred to in the Petition. l9 HAC. (SP, J) & RY, J '\NA 227 2025 v. To paslj such order as deemed fit in thc inte'rr.:st of berter wolking of the Company and in the inter<:st of justice." (Emphasis Srtp plied)

22. The NCLT admittedly has not granted the rl:lief to the applicant.s therr:in. Indisputediy, against the sard c,rder of the NCLT no app,r al or other proceedings were filecl. We find substance in t[-re arguments of the learned counsel lor the respondents that reliefs claimed in clause (b) of the llr.ayer clause has threzrd relation r.r.ith the reliefs claimed before the ltlCLT in the above mentionr-',1 matter. There is no occasion for this Court to undertake the :xercise of appointment of Advocate ()ommissioner or former .Jr-rdge /.Judges to take up administration arLd affairs of respondent Nos,.6 to 9.

23. Ap:rt frorl this, paragraph No. 10 of the afores;,rid order of the NCLT mal.:cs it clear that the Supreme Court, declined to quash the FIR rand directed the authorities to expedite the process of investigation regarding the allegations of mismanag;ement etc,. The NC[,T in candid terms opined that the insta.nt Company Petition has r,ot only given rise to duplicity of i rrvestigation proceedings, but. undoubtedly will hamper and disturb the process 20 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025 of proceeding with the enquiry and investigation by the concerned authorities, which is under process as per the directions of the Supreme Court. Thus, NCLT declined interference. The Writ Court has rightly declined the interference by holding that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

24. So relief (c) is concerned, the Advocate Commissioner/Judges were sought to be appointed to address the individual grievance of displaced and iilegally terminated staff members, particularly Class IV workers and other employees. Learned counsel for the respondents raised valid objections that the Writ Petition cannot be equated with Public Interest Litigation. The employees whose Fundamental Rights are allegedly violated and who have been illegally terminated can assail the said orders in appropriate proceedings. The Writ Petition was not maintainable for the said relief.

25. In relief (d), it is prayed to take action against respondent No.1 1, who failed to conduct inspection and undertake exercise as prayed for. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners drew attention of this Court to the . counter of respondent No.11, wherein he specihcally stated that ZI HAC,I lSP,.l) & RY, J wA 227 2025 the representation of the writ petitioners has been ,lisposed of. Despite repeat,:C queries, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners coulC not point out that the writ petitionerrs preferred such r('presentation pursuant to any statulol'i y enabling provisiorr ernd lespondent No.11had any corresponding obligation to decider l.he said representation. In absence thereof. the Writ of Mandamus calnot be issued on mere asking (see Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao2s, Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India26 and Municipal Oorporation of Greater Murnbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa2z). Leerned Single Judge has comrnitted no error in rejecting the Writ Petition on the aspect of maint rLinability.

26. Tht: relie' (e) is claimed against the action of respondent No.lO, who is ;r,lmittedly situated in United Kingdom. The affairs betu,een rcspondent No.10 ald respondent Nos.6 to 9 are their internal rrffairs iurd no Writ can be issued adjudging the action of respondent N,t,10, who is situated beyorrd ther territorial jurisdiction of the country. The relief (f) is also offs;hoot of the other reliefs. '?5 (2002) .t scc (;E 'u 1zool1+ MpLJ 5,18 fl2) t'1zot9y s scc rI9 22 HACJ (SP, J) & RY, J wA 227 2025

27. The learned Single Judge passed a detailed order and examined the question of maintainability on relevant parameters The judgment of Madras High Court in D. Bright Joseph (supra) was considered and a plausible view is taken thereupon

28. In St. Mary's Education Society (supra), the Apex Court held as under "36. It needs no elaboration to state that a school affiliated to CBSE which is unaided is not a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of ladia fsee Satimbla Sharma v. St Paul's Senior Secondanl School lSatimbla Shonna v. St Paul's Senior Secondant Schoot, (2ort\ 1s SCC 760 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 751 l. Nevertheless the school discharges a public duty of imparting education which is a fundamental right of the citizen [see K. Krishnamocharuulu v. Si Venkatesutara Hindu College of Enqq. lK. Kishnamacharyulu v. Si Venkatesutara Hindu College of Enqg., (19971 3 SCC 571 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 8411 l. The school affiliated to CBStr is therefore an "authori[," amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India[see Binnu Ltd. v. V. Sadasiuan lBinng Ltd. v. V. Sadasiuan, (2005) 6 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 8811 l. However, a judicial review of the action challenged by a party can be had by resort to the writ jurisdiction only if there is a public law element and not to enforce a contract of personal service. A contract of personal service includes all matters relating to the service of the employee - conhrmation, suspension, transfer, termination, etc. lsee Apollo Tgres Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian [Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian, (2OO9l 14 SCC 360 : (2oo9) 5 SCC (Civ) 358 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 3s9l l.

37. This Court in K.K. Sc"ksenrz v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage [K.K. Saksena v. Intemational Commission on lrrigation & Drainage, (20151 4 SCC 670 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 65a : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 1191 , after an exhaustive review of its earlier decisions on the subject, held as follows : (SCC pp. 692 & 696, paras 43 & 52) 23 HAC.I (SP, J) & RY, J \NA 227 2025 "4.1. Wha - follows from a minute ald carefu I readrng of the aforesaid - rLdgments of this Court is that if a person or rLuthority is "State" \v'1thin the meaning of Arlicle 12 of the Conr.rtitution, ad-nittedll a urit petition under Article 226 wortlcl lie, against su,rh a perion or body. However, \i,re may add that even in such ca:;es',r,rit ,r,ould not lie to enforce private law rights. Th()re are a calena of judgments on this aspect and it is not neccssary to refer to thcse judgments as that is the basic principle ol' judicial reriew of an action under the administrative lan,. The leason is ob,rious. A prir.ate law is that part of a legal system wlrich is a pa:t of ccmmon law that involves relationships betr.r,een inclividual: such as law of contract or torts. Therefore, even if wr. t pctiti,) 1 would be marntainable against an authot it f , which is "State" rnder Article 12 of the Constitution, bcfore issrring any wr:t, parti:.rlarly writ of mar-rdamus, the Court has to satisfy that aclion of sl cl'r an authorily, which is challenged, rs in tht,, domain of public lrr,v as rlistinguished from private law. 52 It is tr te that contract ", O..".r, service cannot br: r'nforced. There are tlrree exceptions to this rule, namely: (I) when ll,e employee is a public servant working u;.rdcr the Union of Lrlia or State; (iz) n hen s r ch an employee is employed by al auth,rrity/body which is rr State within the meaning of Article lll of the Constituti,r:r of India; and (iir'J u'hen r;'rch an employee is "workmen" within the rneaning of disputc relgar-ding his termination by invoking the n,rchinery undcr the said Act. In the lirst tv,.o cases, the employment ceases to have prLvate law chiritcter end "status" to such an emplol.rnent is attaclre,l. In the third cate;3,rrv of cases, it is the Industrial Disputes A,:;t rvhich confers jur sdiction on the Labour Court / Industrial Triltunal to grant reinrilatement in case termination is found to be illegal."

38. The folkr''r,ing decisions have been adverled 1o in K.K. Sakseno. lK.R. Saksena v. Internationol Commission on Inlgation & Draino.ge, (2t) f 5) 4 SCC 670 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 65a : QOtSl 2 scc (t,&s) 1 1()l :