Girish G vs State Of Kerala

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

2 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD (CIAL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN AIRPORT PO, KERALA 683 111.

BY ADVS. ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL ADV. SMT.DEVI.C.HARIDAS ADV. SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN ADV. SMT.J.SURYA ADV. SMT.UMA GOPINATH ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).12328/2013(M), WP(C).6949/2013(P), WP(C).6950/2013(P), WP(C).8011/2014(B), THE COURT ON 10.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

WP(C).No.12328 OF 2013

PETITIONER/S:

RAMESAN T., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AMBADY, PRA/50, PUNNAKKAMUGAL, ARAMDA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685002.

BY ADVS.

SRI.BAISIL ATTIPETTY.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. (CIAL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM-683111.

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

3 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

BY ADVS.

ADV.SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA ADV.SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).6949/2013(P), WP(C).6950/2013(P), WP(C).7219/2014(B), WP(C).8011/2014(B), THE COURT ON 10.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

WP(C).No.6949 OF 2013

PETITIONER/S:

HENISH P.V. AGED 32 YEARS SON OF P.V.VARGHESE, PYNADATH HOUSE, NAYATHODE.P.O., ANGAMALY-683 572.

BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.K.V.GEORGE SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI AIRPORT.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 111.

2 THE CHAIRMAN COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 111.

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 111.

BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN BY ADV. SMT.J.SURYA BY ADV. SMT.UMA GOPINATH BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA

OTHER PRESENT: U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN-SR.S.C

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).12328/2013(M), WP(C).6950/2013(P), WP(C).7219/2014(B), WP(C).8011/2014(B), THE COURT ON 10.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

WP(C).No.6950 OF 2013

PETITIONER/S:

BINOY K.K. AGED 38 YEARS S/O K.V.KURIAKOSE, KEECHERIL HOUSE, CHEMPAKASSERY ROAD, ALUVA P.O., ALUVA-683 101.

BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.K.V.GEORGE SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 111.

2 THE CHAIRMAN COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 111.

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 111.

BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN BY ADV. SMT.J.SURYA BY ADV. SMT.UMA GOPINATH BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).12328/2013(M), WP(C).6949/2013(P), WP(C).7219/2014(B), WP(C).8011/2014(B), THE COURT ON 10.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

WP(C).No.8011 OF 2014

PETITIONER/S:

MS.DAISY P.T. AGED 50 YEARS W/O. DAVIS, PLACKKAL HOUSE, KARIYAD, MEKKAD P.O, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683589

BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL JACOB SRI.K.A.HASHIM SRI.M.A.ANZAR SRI.K.R.MURALI SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS

RESPONDENT/S:

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN AIRPORT P.O, NEDUMBASSERY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683111

R1 BY ADV. SMT.DEVI.C.HARIDAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.J.SURYA R1 BY ADV. SMT.UMA GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA BY ADV.SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).12328/2013(M), WP(C).6949/2013(P), WP(C).6950/2013(P), WP(C).7219/2014(B), THE COURT ON 10.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 6

P.V.ASHA, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013, 6950/2013, 12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 ---------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2020

ORDER

JUDGMENT

Petitioners in all these writ petitions are challenging the

termination of their services by the Cochin International

Airport Limited (CIAL). Therefore, all these writ petitions are

disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents

referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.

(C).No.7219/2014 unless specifically stated otherwise.

2. The CIAL has raised a preliminary objection as to the

maintainability of these Writ Petitions. According to them, CIAL

does not come under the definition of a State under Article 12

of the Constitution of India. It is also their case that it does

not perform any public duties and therefore the writ petitions

will not lie against termination of services of its employees

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also.

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavits and

additional counter affidavits. Petitioners have filed reply

affidavits and additional affidavits. In view of the objection

raised by the respondents it is necessary to consider the

question of maintainability of the Writ Petitions.

4. CIAL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 7

1956. It is stated that State Government is holding only 32.24%

of the paid up capital of the Company. Therefore, it is not a

Government company within the definition of section 617 of the

Companies Act, 1956. Article 4 of Articles of Association

provides that the allotment of shares shall exclusively be

vested in the Board of Directors. The particulars of the

allottees shall be entered in the Register of Members maintained

under section 150 of the Act. The number of shares to be

allotted is left to the discretion of the Board of Directors. As

per Article 6, the Company may alter the conditions of its

Memorandum of Association in its general meeting by ordinary

resolution. Article 7 provides that the Company may reduce its

share capital in any manner by special resolution, subject to

any incident authorised and consent required by law. As per

Article 94 of Ext.R2(a) Articles of Association, the number of

Directors shall not be less than 3 and not more than 12. It is

stated that there are 11 Directors. Under Article 95 (1), the

Cochin International Airport Society shall have the right to

nominate one third of the total number of Directors of the

Company, as long as the society holds not less than 15% of the

equity shares. Under Article 102, any financing Corporation or

body to which the CIAL has financial obligation, shall have a

right to appoint one or more persons as Directors, pursuant to

an agreement between it and the company, they would be the

nominated Directors, without liability to retire on rotation. As W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 8

per Article 108, two thirds of the total number of Directors

shall retire by rotation and shall be elected by the Company in

the General Meeting. The nominees who retire on rotation would

include Government nominees also. As per Article 116, the quorum

for a meeting of the board shall be one third of the total

strength or three Directors, whichever is higher. Except the

Chairman and Managing Director, the other Directors in the Board

are appointed in the General Meeting of the Company. It is

stated that the Chief Secretary to Government is also appointed

as Director in the General Meeting. The Director General of

Civil Aviation has granted Ext.R2(d) license to CIAL authorising

it to use the aerodrome as regular place of landing and

departure to all persons on equal terms and conditions for

operation by aircraft requiring specifications of runway and

associated facilities subject to the conditions specified

therein. CIAL has entered into Ext.R2(e) agreement with the

Airport Authority of India (AAI). The agreement would indicate

that the AAI is responsible for providing air traffic services

within Indian airspace and at all civil airports in India.

Ext.R2(e) agreement was executed on 25.02.2010 for the

provisions of CNS/ATM facilities and services (Communication,

Navigation, Surveillance and Air Traffic Management). As per

clause 8.1 of the agreement the AAI shall not assign or

otherwise transfer its right or obligation under the agreement

without prior consent of CIAL. As per clause 8.2, CIAL shall not W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 9

assign or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations under the

agreement without prior consent of AAI. It is stated that the

CIAL is only given the license to use the aerodrome and to

provide for the facilities of aircraft, runway, aircraft

terminal, building, associated infrastructure etc, in addition

to its obligation to ensure continuity and reliability of CNS

and ATM to ensure safety of aircraft with proper coordination

with the responsible agencies. It is stated that the ground

handling services at the airport like passenger handling, ramp

handling, cargo flight handling, etc. are handled by AIR India

on the basis of Ext.R2(f) agreement. It is stated that it has

also entered into an agreement with Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Limited for providing facilities for refueling of aircrafts. In

effect according to the respondents CIAL does not discharge any

sovereign or public function. It is stated that State Government

does not provide any funds and does not exercise any control

over it and, at any rate, there is no deep or pervasive control

over the affairs of the CIAL. It is also stated that the nature

of functions and duties attached to the 2nd respondent is not of

public nature. It is also their case that the CIAL has not

undertaken any activity which was carried out by the State

Government and hence there is no administrative, financial or

functional control for Government over any of the activities of

the CIAL. It is stated that while the share holding of

Government of Kerala is 32.24%, State Public Sector W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 10

Undertakings, Central Public Sector Undertakings and

Nationalized Banks are holding the share of 1.77%, 9.97% and

3.59% and all the remaining shares are held by members of

public. It is stated that the Board of Directors of the 2 nd

respondent had in its meeting held on 23.06.2016 suggested that

the State Government shall hold at least 51% of the equity

capital of CIAL.

5. The Government had as per Ext.R2(u) order dated

29.08.1997 (produced along with IA No.7615/2017) decided to

enhance the share to 51% and that as on 31.01.2000, 60.9% share

of CIAL was to be held by the State Government and Public Sector

Undertakings. However, it is stated that the decision of the

Government in Ext.R2(u) to enhance the share capital was not

implemented and as per Ext.R2(v) order dated 17.09.2001 it was

decided to refix its equity participation in the 2nd respondent

company at 26% from 51%. Simultaneously, it was decided that the

CIAL would take steps to amend the Articles of Association

empowering the State Government to nominate the Chairman,

Managing Director and 1/3rd of the Board of Directors of the

company. Accordingly, Ext.R2(w) resolution was passed in the

Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 03.11.2001 amending the

Articles of Association in accordance with Ext.R2(x). It is

stated that as at present the share capital of State Government

is only 32.24%.

6. It is further stated that it is providing facilities to W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 11

the statutory authorities like CISF, Customs Department,

Intelligence Bureau, AAI, Meteorological Department, State

Police, etc. in its premises for discharging their statutory

duties as is being done in other private airports. The

memorandum of Association was thereafter amended as per

Ext.R2(x). As per amended Article 95.1, so long as Government of

Kerala and/or its Public Sector Undertakings jointly or

severally hold not less than 26% of the paid up equity capital

of the company, Government of Kerala shall have the right to

nominate from time to time at its discretion one third of the

total number of the directors of the company. It shall also be

entitled to remove any such director so appointed and to appoint

any other person in their place. The Directors so appointed by

the Government shall be liable to retire by rotation. Article

107 provides that all the directors of the Company shall have

equal rights and privileges in all matters and be subject to

equal obligations and duties in respect of the affairs of the

Company. Article 112 provides that the number of directors can

be increased or reduced in the general meeting and it can also

be determined in what rotation such increased or reduced number

has to retire. Under article 116(1), the quorum of the meeting

of the board shall be one third of the total strength or three

directors whichever is higher. It also provides that in case the

number of interested directors is equal to or exceeds two-thirds

of the total strength, the number of remaining directors who are W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 12

not interested shall be the quorum, provided it is not less than

three. Under article 118, the Chief Minister of Kerala shall be

the Chairman of the Company who shall be one of the nominee

directors of the State Government. Article 123 provides for the

powers and duties of directors. Under Article 123(a), the

business of the company shall be managed by the board of

directors. Under Article 125(b)(7), the directors shall have

the discretion to remove, suspend, dismiss and remunerate

bankers, legal advisers, accountants and other professionals,

cashiers, clerks, agents, commission agents, dealers, brokers,

foremen, servants, employees of every description and to employ

professional or technical or skilled assistant from time to time

in the interest of the company. As per Article 125(1), the

Government of Kerala and/or its Public Sector Undertakings

jointly or severally hold not less than 26% of the paid up

equity capital of the Company. The Government of Kerala shall

have the right to appoint one among the Directors as Managing

Director of the company for such term not exceeding five years

at a time and to fix his remuneration. It can also have the

right to withdraw/cancel the appointment so made and to

reappoint any other director as Managing Director at their

discretion. However, it is provided that the Government of

Kerala shall exercise its rights contained in that article only

in consultation with the board of the Company. Article 125(3)

provides that the Managing Director shall have the general W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 13

direction, management and superintendence of the business of the

company with power to do all acts and matters for carrying out

the business and concerns of the company subject to the general

supervision and control of the board.

7. Along with IA No.7572/2017 the respondents have produced

the resolution of the board of directors in its meeting held on

23.06.2016 by which the present Chief Minister of the Government

of Kerala was appointed as the Chairman. Under Article 118(1) of

the Articles of Association, the Chief Minister of the

Government of Kerala shall be the Chairman of the Company so

long as the share capital held by Government and/or its Public

Sector Undertakings is not less than 26%. Ext.R2(n) would show

that Dr.T.M.Thomas Issac, who was appointed as the Additional

Director on 23.06.2016, was appointed as Director as resolved by

the Board of Directors on 27.09.2016. It was also resolved that

the period of his office would be liable to determination by

retirement of directors by rotation. Adv.V.S.Sunilkumar and

Adv.Mathew T.Thomas were also appointed similarly on the same

day. Sri.S.M.Vijayan was also appointed as Director on similar

terms.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners

argued that CIAL is an authority under Article 12. Though

Government is having only less than 51% share, the Chief

Minister is the Chairman; there are three other members

nominated by the Government; more over the Managing Director is W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 14

also appointed by the Government. Therefore, the decision would

be in the hands of Government as there are only 11 members.

9. Sri.U.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the

CIAL, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar

Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111

argued that CIAL does not come under the purview of Article 12.

10. On the other hand Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the

learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.7219 of 2014

relied on judgment of this Court in Sreesanth v. Board of

Control for Cricket in India :[2017 (3) KLT 1033] and argued

that Airways, Aircraft, provision for Aircrafting etc., come

under 7th schedule as item No.29. Referring to Clause 3.7 of

Ext.R2(e) agreement, which obligates that CIAL has to ensure

suitable arrangements against all sorts of emergencies occurring

in the airport and Clause 8.2 which prohibits assignment of the

rights of CIAL without the consent of AAI, relating to

assignment by CIAL, the provisions contained in Ext.R2(f)

agreement entered into by CIAL with Airlines according to which

Air India is selected to undertake exclusive contract of ground

handling services and also Ext.P4, it was argued that Government

is the authority to decide all matters; it was argued that as

Appointing Authority, the Managing Director need only have

consultation with the Board of Directors and not concurrence.

11. M/s. Ashok Shenoy and P.S.Gireesh, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.6949 and 6950/2014 W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 15

and Sri.R.Sreeraj, the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner in W.P(c).No.8011/2014 relied on the judgment of the

Bombay High Court in Flemingo Duty Free shop Pvt Ltd & anr V

Union of India & ors: 2008 SCC online Bom 508 where MIAL was

declared an instrumentality of State though the Government was

having share capital of only 26%. The contention of the learned

counsel is that CIAL is performing all the duties provided under

the Airport Authorities Act which the airport authority has to

perform. Airport authority is a State. When all the powers,

duties and functions of the airport authority provided under the

Airport Authorities Act are performed/discharged by the CIAL, it

cannot be said that CIAL is not a State. According to him,

Government is having sovereign power and the entire

administration is in the hands of Government. It is stated that

the initiative to constitute and run CIAL was made by the

Government of Kerala through its executive and the participation

of the private directors is confined to financing to the

capital. The decision making authority and the power to control

vests in the Government. When the Chief Minster is the Chairman,

Managing Director is the Government Servant from IAS cadre under

the Government, Chief Secretary and the Ministers of Finance,

Agriculture, Industries and Minister for Airports are in the

board of directors, control over the functioning of the CIAL

continues with the Government. It is also their case that the

function of the CIAL is of public nature and it is enjoying W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 16

monopoly status. Therefore, in all respects it is a company

controlled by the Government of Kerala.

12. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Air India

Ltd V CIAL: AIR 2000 SC 801, Amar Alcohol Ltd. v. Sicom Ltd. And

Another: (2006)1 SCC 199 Sri.Gireesh P.S. argued that mere

reduction in share cannot be the criteria to determine the

nature of the functions of CIAL. Pointing out the preamble of

the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, its statement of

objects, its functions under Section 12 it was argued that the

main objects of the CIAL as evident from Ext.R2(a) Memorandum of

Association are one and the same as contained in Section 12 of

the Airport Authority of India Act. Pointing out the licence as

well as the agreement executed in Exts.R2(e), R2(f) with

reference to Clause 3.1 to 3.3 as well as the cargo handling

dealt with in Ext.R2(f) agreement for ground handling, it was

pointed out that CIAL was undertaking all the activities under

Section 12 of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. It is

also pointed out that as per Ext.R2(u) order dated 29.08.1997,

Government share was enhanced from 26% to 51%. Thereafter on

17.09.2001 the share capital was reduced from 51% to 26% and

simultaneously Government ordered amendment of Articles of

Association especially to Articles 95, 116, 125, etc., based on

which Chairman shall be the Chief Minister of the State. It is

pointed out that Articles 74, 76, 77, 78, 82(2) 92, 125(3) etc.,

would also show the the governmental influence over the affairs W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 17

of the Company. Under Article 74 the Chairman shall preside over

the general meeting of the company. Under Article 76, a

resolution put to vote shall be decided on show of hands, on a

declaration by the Chairman. Under Article 77 Chairman shall

have a casting vote in the event of equality of votes, in

addition to the vote in his capacity as a member. Article 78

deals with the procedure when a poll is demanded in accordance

with Section 179 of the Companies Act. Article 82 provides that

in the event of objection against the qualification of any voter

it shall be referred to the Chairman whose decision shall be

final. Article 92 provides that the Chairman shall be the sole

judge of every vote tendered in a poll. Article 125 as amended

provides that the power to appoint the Managing Director shall

be on Government of Kerala as long as it holds not less than 25%

of the share. It was argued that in effect the Government is

having a supervisory and dominant role and that all the

decisions are of Government despite the percentage of shares

below 35. It was argued that the dictum laid down in Pradeep

Kumar's case (CSIR) would apply to the facts of the case.

Referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Flemingo

Duty Free Shop's case (supra), it was argued that in all

respects the duties and functions of MIAL and CIAL are one and

the same and that the CIAL is performing statutory duties in

accordance with the provisions contained in the AAI Act. It is

pointed out that 1/3rd of the Directors, Managing Director, W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 18

Chairman would mean that 5 out of the 11 directors are

Government nominees and therefore all the decisions would always

be of the Government. The learned counsel referred to Ext.P12

order of the Information Commission produced in W.P.

(C).No.6950/2014 along with I.A.No.2 of 2019 and argued that

there was already a finding that CIAL is a public authority.

However the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the said

decision is already stayed and that cannot be relied on.

13. Relying on the judgments of the apex court in Sukhdev

Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi: (1975) 1 SCC 421,

Pradeep Kumar Biswas V Indian Institute of Chemical Biology:

(2002) 5 SCC 111, learned Senior Counsel argued that CIAL is not

created by Government; it is a private limited company; there is

no audit by CAG; there is no sovereign power for Government. The

judgments in General Manager, KSCM Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad [AIR

2003 SC 4531], Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. v. V.K.Sodhi [AIR

2007 SC 2885: (2007)15 SCC 136 (para 10 to 14)], Jatya Pal

Singh And Others v. Union of India And Others [(2013)6 SCC 452],

Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Chairman, Institute of Banking

Personnel Selection, Mumbai [(2019) 3 KHC 625], G.Bassi Reddy v.

International Crops Research Institute & Another [(2003) 4 SCC

225 para 28], Binny Ltd. And Another v. V.Sadasivan And

Others [(2005) 6 SCC 657] were relied on in support of the

contention that a Writ Petition against CIAL is not maintainable

as it is neither a State nor is it dealing with any public W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 19

duties.

14. As much reliance was made on the judgment of the High

Court of Bombay where MIAL was declared as an instrumentality of

State, I will examine the same. From the contention advanced

therein it is seen that the MIAL is a joint venture company,

with 26% shares held by Air Port Authority of India. The

contention therein was that MIAL is the lessee of the AAI under

Section 12 A of the AAI Act for the development, maintenance and

operation of the Chhatrapati Sivaji International Airport, an

existing airport. It was also the contention that MIAL has to

pay 38.7% of its gross revenue to the AAI. It was also found

that no change in the Memorandum of Association or Articles of

Association can be effected by MIAL without the consent of AAI;

monthly reports are to be furnished to AAI; developments can be

made only in Central Government lines, etc. In the present case,

there is no lease agreement executed with the AAI. There is no

lease with AAI and AAI does not have any shareholding also.

Therefore the judgment of the Bombay High Court would not apply

to the facts of this case.

15. The next contention is that the objects behind the

constitution of CIAL is to perform the duties conferred on

Section 12 of the AAI Act, 1994 which read as follows:

12. Functions of the Authority.-- (1) Subject to the rules, if any, made by the Central Government in this behalf, it shall be the function of the Authority to manage the airports, the civil enclaves and the aeronautical communication stations efficiently.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to provide air traffic service and air transport service at W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 20

any airport and civil enclaves.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Authority may--

(a) plan, develop, construct and maintain runways, taxiways, aprons and terminals and ancillary buildings at the airports and civil enclaves;

(aa) establish airports, or assist in the establishment of private airports, by rendering such technical, financial or other assistance which the Central Government may consider necessary for such purpose;

(b) plan, procure, instal and maintain navigational aids, communication equipment, beacons and ground aids at the airports and at such locations as may be considered necessary for safe navigation and operation of aircrafts;

(c) provide air safety services and search and rescue facilities in co-ordination with other agencies;

(d) establish schools or institutions or centres for the training of its officers and employees in regard to any matter connected with the purposes of this Act;

(e) construct residential buildings for its employees;

(f) establish and maintain hotels, restaurants and restrooms at or near the airports;

(g) establish warehouses and cargo complexes at the airports for the storage or processing of goods;

(h) arrange for postal, money exchange, insurance and telephone facilities for the use of passengers and other persons at the airports and civil enclaves;

(i) make appropriate arrangements for watch and ward at the airports and civil enclaves;

(j) regulate and control the plying of vehicles, and the entry and exit of passengers and visitors, in the airports and civil enclaves with due regard to the security and protocol functions of the Government of India;

(k) develop and provide consultancy, construction or management services, and undertake operations in India and abroad in relation to airports, air-navigation services, ground aids and safety services or any facilities thereat;

(l) establish and manage heliports and airstrips;

(m) provide such transport facility as are, in the opinion of the Authority, necessary to the passengers travelling by air;

(n) form one or more companies under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law relating to companies to further the efficient discharge of the functions imposed on it by this Act;

(o) take all such steps as may be necessary or convenient for, or may be incidental to, the exercise of any power or the discharge of any function conferred or imposed on it by this Act;

(p) perform any other function considered necessary or desirable by the Central Government for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of aircraft to, from and across W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 21

the air space of India;

(q) establish training institutes and workshops;

(r) any other activity at the airports and the civil enclaves in the best commercial interests of the Authority including cargo handling, setting up of joint ventures for the discharge of any function assigned to the Authority.

(4) In the discharge of its functions under this section, the Authority shall have due regard to the development of air transport service and to the efficiency, economy and safety of such service. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as--

(a) authorising the disregard by the Authority of any law for the time being in force; or

(b) authorising any person to institute any proceeding in respect of duty or liability to which the Authority or its officers or other employees would not otherwise be subject.

16. The main objects of CIAL as per Ext.R2(a) Memorandum

of Association are as follows:

"To construct, develop, turn into account, set up, commission, operate, manage and maintain an Airport of international standards with all modern facilities for domestic and international flights by Indian and foreign airlines and all other related activities, to make it an International Airport subject to the guidelines prescribed by the regulating authorities in India and abroad, and to own or hire aircrafts for operation in India and/or abroad as air taxis by the Company or with Airport authorities or other parties as warranted by circumstances in the manner beneficial to the interest of the Company, to provide repair, servicing, engine overhauling and on-line maintenance facilities to all types of aircrafts including wide bodies Turbo Jets, helicopters, turbo propellers by construction of Hangars or otherwise, to collaborate and contract for any or all of the above mentioned acts whether in India or abroad."

17. CIAL has entered into Ext.R2(d) agreement with AAI,

according to which AAI would provide air traffic service for

CIAL in terms of the conditions set out therein. AAI will

provide the CNS/ATM (Communication, Navigation and Surveillance

and Air Traffic Management Services as described in Schedule

III); whereas CIAL will provide all facilities for the W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 22

operations, as agreed to in the agreement. The provisions

contained in Section 12(3)(aa) of the AAI Act would show that

the duties of AAI includes rendering of assistance in

establishing private air ports also. It is an admitted fact that

the State Government is having only 32.24% of the share in the

paid up capital of CIAL. The Company does not get any financial

assistance from the Government. It cannot also be said that the

Company is having any State protected monopoly. Therefore, it is

necessary to examine whether CIAL is an instrumentality of State

as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As

pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners the

presence of one third of the Directors nominated by Government

along with the Chairman is likely to influence the decisions of

the Company, especially when the quorum is one third. At the

same time there is no provision enabling Government to issue any

directives to the Company; company is not also bound to furnish

any reports or accounts before Government. Therefore whether

presence of Government nominees, the Chairman and the Managing

Director would make the control of Government deep and pervasive

and whether it is discharging public duties is to be examined in

the light of various judgments, interpreting Article 12 as well

as 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. First of all I shall examine the applicability of the

judgments relied on by the petitioners. In Air India v. CIAL:

(200)2 SCC 617, relied on by the learned Counsel for the W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 23

petitioners, the Apex Court was considering the challenge

against a contract awarded to Air India for ground handling.

Though in para.2 of the judgment it is stated that CIAL is a

public sector undertaking, it appears that the question of

maintainability of the Writ Petition was not raised therein.

19. In the judgment in Amar Alcohol Ltd. v. SICOM Ltd.,

(2006) 1 SCC 199, relied on by Sri.Ashok Shenoy, the issue was

as to whether the State Industrial Investment Corporation of

Maharashtra Limited (SIICOM), was an instrumentality of State.

It was a company established by the Government of Maharashtra in

the year 1966 with 100% shares owned by the State Government.

The contention of the appellant was that consequent to reduction

in the shares it ceased to have the status of a State Financial

Corporation under the Act. In paras.19 and 20 of the judgment,

the apex court found that the State of Maharashtra being the

single largest shareholder has retained the overall control over

the management by retaining the right to nominate its Directors

by virtue of the amended Article 18(a) of the Articles of

Association of the Companies. It was held that by mere

reduction in its stakes to below 50%, SIICOM would not cease to

be a State Financial Corporation, as it was established by the

State of Maharashtra for financing industrial concerns and the

Central Government had in exercise of its powers under Section

46 of the Act, notified it as a Financial Corporation. No such

circumstances are available in the present case. W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 24

20. In the judgment in Sreesanth v. Board of Control for

Cricket in India: 2017(3) KLT 103, this court held that if the

Constitution obliges the State to make law and State allows a

private body to act as a substitute, court would be justified in

its approach of conceiving a public element in respect of an

action to preserve public interest or for the collective benefit

of the public. The question whether CIAL is a state or

otherwise, whether its action involves any public element can be

considered afterwards, after examining whether it fulfills the

tests laid down by the apex court.

21. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi: (1981) 1 SCC

722 a 5 Judge Constitution Bench approved the following six

tests laid down in the judgment in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.

International Airport Authority of India: (1979) 3 SCC 489, to

determine whether an institution is a State under Article 12 of

the Constitution of India.

"(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by the Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character.

(3) It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.

(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.

(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the Government.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 25

1. 'Specifically, if a department of the Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference' of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of the Government.

22. Later a 7 Judge Constitution Bench in Pradeep Kumar

Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology: (2002) 5 SCC 111

after considering all the judgments relating to the same held as

follows in para 40 of the judgment:

"40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be -- whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State."

23. In G.Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research

Institute: (2003) 4 SCC 225, a two Judge Bench considered the

question whether ICRISAT, which is an international institution

functioning in India is a state and whether a writ will lie

against under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the

employees of ICRISAT challenged the termination of services and

the High Court dismissed their writ petitions on the ground that

writ will not lie against ICRISAT. The apex court found that

ICRISAT did not fulfill the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar

Biswas's case (supra). It was found that it was not set up by

the Government; it is not controlled by Government; it is not

accountable to the Government; it gives its services voluntarily W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 26

to a large number of countries besides India; the Indian

Government's financial contribution to ICRISAT is minimal; its

participation in ICRISAT's administration is limited to 3 out of

15 members and therefore it cannot be said that it is a State or

other authority as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of

India.

24. The Apex Court further examined whether a writ will lie

under Article 226. After discussing the judgments in Praga Tools

Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual: (1969) 1 SCC 585, Shri Anadi Mukta

Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani: (1989) 2 SCC 691, etc it was

observed that public functions or public duties are similar to

or closely related to those performable by the State in its

capacity. As the primary activity of ICRISAT was to conduct

research and training programs in the sphere of agriculture

purely on a voluntary basis, it was held that a service

voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be a public duty. It

was further found that while the Indian public may be the

beneficiary of the activities of the Institute, it cannot be

said that ICRISAT owes a duty to the Indian public to provide

research and training facilities. Reiterating the dictum laid

down in Praga Tools Corporation's case it was held that an

application for mandamus will not lie for an order of

reinstatement to an office which is essentially of a private

character or to secure performance of obligations owed by a

company towards its workmen.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 27

25. Another constitution Bench with 5 Judges in Zee

Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India: (2005) 4 SCC 649 considered

whether BCCI is a State. After discussing the dictum laid down

in Pradeep Kumar Biswas' case, to determine whether a body is

State, it was held that though the Union of India has been

exercising certain control over the activities of the Board it

can only be said to be regulatory in nature and not pervasive as

interpreted in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case and hence it is not a

State under Article 12. However in para.31 of the judgment it

was found that selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling

the activities of the players and others involved in the game of

cricket, etc are activities of BCCI akin to public duties or

State functions and it was made clear that any aggrieved party

can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution. In this context it is relevant to note the

following observations made in para.35 of the judgment.

35. In conclusion, it should be noted that there can be no two views about the fact that the Constitution of this country is a living organism and it is the duty of courts to interpret the same to fulfil the needs and aspirations of the people depending on the needs of the time. It is noticed earlier in this judgment that in Article 12 the term 'other authorities' was introduced at the time of framing of the Constitution with a limited objective of granting judicial review of actions of such authorities which are created under the statute and which discharge State functions. However, because of the need of the day this Court in Rajasthan SEB and Sukhdev Singh noticing the socio-economic policy of the country thought it fit to expand the definition of the term 'other authorities' to include bodies other than statutory bodies. This development of law by judicial interpretation culminated in the judgment of the seven-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas. It is to be noted that in the meantime the socio-economic policy of the Government of India has changed (see BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India) and the State is today distancing itself from commercial activities and concentrating on governance rather than on business. Therefore, the situation prevailing at the W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 28

time of Sukhdev Singh is not in existence at least for the time being, hence, there seems to be no need to further expand the scope of 'other authorities' in Article 12 by judicial interpretation at least for the time being. It should also be borne in mind that as noticed above, in a democracy there is a dividing line between a State enterprise and a non-State enterprise, which is distinct and the judiciary should not be an instrument to erase the said dividing line unless, of course, the circumstances of the day require it to do so."

26. In the judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in

India v. Cricket Association of Bihar: (2015) 3 SCC 251, a 2

Judge Bench of the apex court reiterated that though BCCI is not

a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it

is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In the light of the aforesaid judgments

the Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Assn.

of Bihar: (2016) 8 SCC 535 also reiterated that writ will lie

against BCCI .

27. A two Judge Bench in Lt.Governor of Delhi vs. V.K.

Sodhi : (2007) 15 SCC 136, while considering the claim of

employees in SCERT for parity in pay, held that there is no

simple litmus test to determine whether an entity is State or

"other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India; various facets of the foundation and the

working of the entity would be relevant in determining the

question in the context of the duties entrusted to it or taken

up by it for performance. Referring to the judgment in Pradeep

Kumar Biswas's case, it was held that the matter to be

considered is whether in the context of the functions entrusted

to it, the rules and bye-laws that govern it and the financial W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 29

position enjoyed by it, SCERT can be said to be financially,

functionally and administratively dominated by or under the

control of the Government. Observing that SCERT was formed in

more or less same lines as NCERT and the judgment in Chander

Mohan Khanna V NCERT: (1991)4 SCC 478 that it is not a State

was not overruled in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case, it was held

that the society cannot be said to be a state. It was found that

the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over the

working of SCERT; once the finances are made available to it,

the administration of those finances is left to SCERT and there

is no further Governmental control. It was found that, the

intention behind the very formation of an independent society

itself under the Societies Registration Act, would be not to

make the body a mere appendage of the State. The apex court

accepted the plea of SCERT that if it spends the whole or major

portion of the grant towards the pay and allowances of its

employees, the very object with which the Society was formed

would be frustrated and held that the court cannot issue a

direction which would tend to frustrate the very object with

which SCERT is formed. Accordingly the judgment of the Delhi

High Court was reversed.

28. In State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam Rai: (2009) 5 SCC 577

a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the question

whether the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan, a society

registered under the Societies Registration Act is "State" W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 30

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

It was found that the functions of the Sansthan were being

performed by the Cane Development Department of the State

Government was performing the functions viz. imparting of

knowledge and training to the cane-growers so as to enhance

production of sugar in the State, before its constitution. The

training centres under the Government were transferred to it. 80

to 90% of its expenditure was met out of the funds provided by

the Government. Apart from the fact that the majority of the

office-bearers of the Governing Council were holders of various

offices of the Government with the Minister in charge of the

Cane Department as the ex-officio Chairman of the Governing

Council and the Chief Executive Authority, it was found that the

Sanstan could appoint only Government servants to every posts.

Apart from that it was found that Sansthan was bound by any

directives issued by the Governor. Governor could also call for

the returns, accounts and other information with respect to the

properties and activities of the society. Thus it was found that

its functions were public functions under the deep and

pervasive control of Government and hence it is a State under

Article 12. The judgment in Jatya Pal Singh v. Union of India:

(2013) 6 SCC 452, relates to termination of services of the

former employees of VSNL. It is stated that in 1947, Government

of India tool over a private company, which was operating the

external communication service of India, along with its W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 31

employees and the department of Overseas Communication Service

was formed. Thereafter in 1986, VSNL was constituted and all the

international communication services were transferred to it.

Government of India gradually divested of its shareholdings in

VSNL to 26.97% when Tata group acquired more than 50% of the

shares and the name of VSNL was changed as TCL. The orders of

termination were issued by TCL. The contention of the employees

was that TCL would still fall within the definition of State or

other authority within the ambit of Article 12 of the

Constitution and that since it is performing public duties writ

will lie under Article 226. The Apex Court after referring to

various judgments held that TCL cannot be said to be an

authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution

of India. It was found that TCL did not enjoy monopoly status.

It was found that the Government of India did not exercise deep

or pervasive control over either in the management or policy

making. It was further held that eventhough the operators were

providing service to the subscribers, it cannot be said to be

public functions, as the service is made available on commercial

charges and though functions were formerly discharged by

Government of India. After discussing the meaning of public

function with referene to the United Kingdom Humans Rights Act,

1998, the judgment in Binny Ltd.'s case (supra), in which

referring to the commentary on Judicial Review of Administrative

Action (5th Edn.) by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, in Chapter 3 W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 32

Para 0.24, it was held that a body is performing a 'public

function' when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for

the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the

public or that section of the public as having authority to do

so and that bodies exercise public functions when they intervene

or participate in social or economic affairs in the public

interest. It was held that TCL was providing commercial service

for commercial considerations and it was not discharging any

public function.

29. The judgment in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha

Sarathi Sen Roy : (2013) 8 SCC 345 relates to termination of the

employees of the company which claimed that it was only a

subsidiary of a government company; though Government gave some

aid, Government does not have any control over its day to day

affairs and hence there is no deep or pervasive Government

control over it; it does not carry out any public function

which could render it as, "any other authority", for the

purposes of Article 226 of the Constitution; it carries on a

variety of business activities where there are several

competitors and the terms of employment, cannot be enforced

through writ jurisdiction. After discussing various judgments on

Article 12, the meaning and intent of pervasive control,

sovereign function, etc, it was held as follows:

18. Often, there is confusion when the concept of sovereign functions is extended to include all welfare activities.

However, the court must be very conscious whilst taking a decision as regards the said issue, and must take into W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 33

consideration the nature of the body's powers and the manner in which they are exercised. What functions have been approved to be sovereign are the defence of the country, the raising of armed forces, making peace or waging war, foreign affairs, the power to acquire and retain territory, etc. and the same are not amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts.

30. Analysing the judgments relating to instrumentality of

State, sovereign/public functions, pervasive control, etc, it

was found that it was a Government of India Enterprise under the

administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum, its Directors

are from Government service, it is bound by directives of

President, it has to furnish its monthly reports to the

Ministry, etc and hence it is an instrumentality of State.

31. In K.K.Saksena v. International Commission on

Irrigation & Drainage: (2015) 4 SCC 670, the apex court

examined whether ICID is a state. The object of ICID was found

to be "to encourage progress in design, construction,

maintenance and operation of large and small irrigation works

and canals (including navigation canals); to bring together

information thereon; and to study all questions relating

thereto." The contention was that it was performing the

functions of Government and it was a state within the meaning of

Article 12 apart from the fact that it is amenable to

jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court had after

examining the matter in the light of the Constitution Bench

judgments found that ICID is not funded by the Government nor is

it discharging any function under any statute. The further

question as to whether it is discharging public duty or positive W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 34

obligation of public nature, was examined in the light of the

judgments in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami

Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2

SCC 691, K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College

of Engg., (1997) 3 SCC 571, G. Bassi Reddy v. International

Crops Research Institute: (2003)4 SCC 225, Praga Tools

Corporation V C.A. Immanuel: (1969) 1 SCC 585, Federal Bank Ltd

V Sagar Thomas: (2003) 10 SCC 733, Binny Ltd V Sadasivan: (2005)

6 SCC 657 etc and it was held that a writ petition will lie

under Article 226, against a company which is financed and owned

by the State; a private body run substantially on State funding;

a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of

public nature; and a person or a body under liability to

discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to

perform such a statutory function. But if the rights are purely

of a private character, no mandamus could issue and a contract

of personal service cannot be enforced.

32. In the judgment in Rajbir Surabhjan Singh v. Chairman,

Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai: 2019(3) KHC

625(SC) the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the High Court

that writ petition will not lie against IBPS, as conducting

recruitment for appointment in Banks and other financial

institutions is not a public duty. It was found that IBPS is

not a creature of statute and there are no statutory duties or

obligations imposed on it to conduct recruitment tests; the W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 35

Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, the joint Secretary of

the Banking Division in the Ministry of Finance along with

Chairmen of certain Public Sector Banks were the members of the

governing Body; the IBPS does not receive any funds from

Government; it is not controlled by Government; a control which

is regulatory under the statute or otherwise would not make the

body a State under Article 12.

33. The dictum laid down in the judgment in K.K.Saksena's

case (supra) was reiterated in the judgment in Ramakrishna

Mission and others vs. Kago Kunya and others : AIR 2019 SC 5570,

while considering the appeal filed by the Ramakrishna Mission.

An employee of a Hospital run by the Ramakrishna Mission claimed

continuance in service. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High

Court held that though Ramakrishna Mission may not be a State

under Article 12, the Hospital would be amenable to the writ

jurisdiction under Article 226. After considering the aforesaid

judgments it was held that though the Hospital is in receipt of

some element of grant which covers only part of expenditure it

does not discharge any public function and the terms of the

grant do not indicate any form of governmental control either in

the management or day to day functioning of the Hospital. It was

found that there is no statutory obligation of a public nature

casting any positive obligation on the Hospital and that the

contracts of purely private nature would not be subject to writ

jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 36

structured by statutory provisions and that the general

principle is that a contract of personal service cannot be

specifically enforced. Hence it was found that writ will not lie

against the Hospital under Article 226 of the Constitution also.

In the present case also there is no statute which governs the

contract of service of the employees under the CIAL.

34. On an analysis of the provisions contained in the

Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association and Ext.R2

(a) to (d), it cannot be said that CIAL is financially,

functionally and administratively dominated by or under the

control of the Government. It cannot also be said that it is

having any government conferred monopoly in providing air

traffic services; under the Airport Authority of India Act,

providing of air traffic service is the function of AAI. AAI is

bound to render assistance also for establishment of Airports.

CIAL is only facilitating the AAI to perform its statutory

obligations. Therefore the contention that CIAL is a State or it

is undertaking public function or sovereign function since the

Airways, Aircraft, provision for Aircrafting etc, come

under 7th schedule as item No.29 would not have any relevance.

It does not get any sort of financial aid from Government. It is

not bound to submit reports or accounts before Governmentt;

there is no provision enabling Government to issue any

directives. Therefore, I am of the view that CIAL cannot be said

to be an authority or instrumentality of State within the W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 37

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

35. The next question is whether a writ petition would lie

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is seen that

CIAL does not have any statutory duty to be performed. Going by

the dicta laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court in Praga

Tool Corporation's case, Binny's case, SCERT's case, Jatyapal

Singh's case, IBPS' case, K.K.Saksena's case, Ramakrishna

Missions' case etc (supra), no direction can be issued to

enforce any personal contracts. The employment of the

petitioners by CIAL or the termination of their services do not

invovle any public element. Therefore it cannot also be said

that a writ petition would lie against it under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

In the light of the finding on the preliminary objection in

favour of the respondents, I do not find it necessary to go into

the merits of the case. It is made clear that petitioners would

be free to approach the appropriate forum. As the petitioners

were prosecuting the matter before this Court, the delay in

approaching any forum on account of the pendency of the Writ

Petition shall not stand in the way of entertaining their

grievances.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA rkc/AS JUDGE

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7219/2014 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 5.2.2009.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE IST PETITIONER (DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE (MBA IN STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT) ISSUED BY BRETAGNE BREST, FRANCE TO THE IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE BA DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF THE MBA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3(B) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN PUBLIC RELATIONS AND JOURNALISM ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES, KOCHI TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3(C) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUED BY THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT NEW DELHI TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3(D) COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE IN LLB DEGREE EXAMINATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES FRAMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-40A DATED 23.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-19A-VIII DATED 26.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 39

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-40A DATED 21.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-19A-II DATED 28.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P13(A) COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 4.10.2006 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM AIR FORCE.

EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.109/PD DATED 21.3.1966

EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-40A DATED 31.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-40A DATED 31.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF VARIOUS OFFICERS APPOINTED IN LOWER POSTS

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE SERVICE DETAILS OF SRI.SAJAY.P.AND MS.

JYTHI N.

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 40

THE 12 EMPLOYEES

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1 Y TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 92ND BOARD MEETING HELD ON 8-9-2012

EXHIBIT-R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT-R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS ON 31.3.2014

EXHIBIT-R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON 24.9.2011

EXHIBIT-R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENCE ISSUED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT-R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.02.2010

EXHIBIT-R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND AIR INDIA LTD

EXHIBIT-R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

EXHIBIT-R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR MANAGER (COMMERCIAL)

EXHIBIT-R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS FOR THE POST OF ASSISTNAT MANAGER (RR)

EXHIBIT P2 (J) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT

EXHIBIT -R2 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.2015 APPOINTING SMT.ATHIYARATH KOTHAI RAMANI

EXHIBIT -R2 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.2015 APPOINTING SRI. KURIAKOSE ROY PAUL

EXHIBIT -R2 (M) TRUE COPY OF HE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 23.6.2016 W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 41

EXHIBIT -R2 (N) TRUE COPY OF HE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING DR.T.M.THOMAS ISSAC AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXHIBIT -R2 (O) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING ADV.V.S.SUNIL KUMAR AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXHIBIT -R2 (P) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING ADV.MATHEW.T. THOMAS AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXHIBIT -R2(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING SRI.S.M.VIJAYANAND AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXHIBIT -R2(R) TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENCE WITH RENEWED PERIOD UPTO 29.12.2017

EXHIBIT -R2(S) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDER STANDING DATED 1.7.2015

EXHIBIT -R2(T) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDER STANDING DATED 6.4.2015

EXHIBIT -R2(U) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE GOVT.

DATED 29.8.1997

EXHIBIT -R2(V) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE GOVT.

DATED 17.9.2001

EXHIBIT -R2(W) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 3.11.2001

EXHIBIT -R2(X) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12328/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 24-4-2013.

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-12-2011 IN WPC 35042/2011 WITH CASE STATUS.

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTE OF CIAL PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE.

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 19-9-2013 ISSUED BY THE CIAL TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CASES FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE CIAL.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON 24.9.2011.

EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENCE ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.2.2010.

EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND AIR INDIA LTD.

EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.2.2009.

EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.2015 APPOINTING SMT.

ATHIYARATH KOTHAI RAMANI.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 43

EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.2015 APPOINTING SRI.KURIAKOSE ROY PAUL.

EXHIBIT R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THEMEETING HELD ON 23.6.2016.

EXHIBIT R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THEMEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING DR.T.M.THOMAS ISSAC AD DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 L TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING ADV.V.S.SUNIL KUMAR AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 M TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING ADV.MATHEW T. THOMAS AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 N TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING SRI.S.M. VIJAYANAND AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 O TRUE COPY OF THE ADRODROME LICENSE WITH RENEWED PERIOD UPTO 29.12.2017.

EXHIBIT R1 P TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 1.7.2015.

EXHIBIT R1 Q TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 6.4.2015.

EXHIBIT R1 R TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.8.1997.

EXHIBIT R1 S TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.22/2001/TRAN DATED 17.9.2001.

EXHIBIT R1 T TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 3.11.2011.

EXHIBIT R1 U TRUE COY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6949/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.LAC.NO.15/98&16/98 DATED 01.06.2009 ISSUED BY SENIOR MANAGER (L.A) OF KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY TO MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 18.09.2009 ISSUED BY MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER, NAMELY, VALSA TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER NO.CIAL/HR- 40A DATED 08.09.2009 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CIAL/HR-1A DATED 24.09.2009 ISSUED BY HEAD (HR) OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-19A-IV DATED 28.09.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.CIAL-MDO/2011- 12(II) DATED 19.09.2011 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CIAL-MD/SC- LET/2011-12 DATED 15.11.2011 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.11.2011 SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-19 A(II)

DATED 09.04.2012 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CIAL/HR-40A DATED 31.08.2012 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.09.2012 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF PAGE FROM THE WEBSITE OF IST W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 45

RESPONDENT WHEREIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT MANAGER (PUBLIC RELATIONS) WERE PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES OF IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.12.2010 SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF IST RESPONDENT BY MR.A.G.KESAVAN.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CIAL/SPIO/RTI DATED 7.1.2011 ISSUED BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF IST RESPONDENT TO MR.A.G.KESAVAN WITH ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CIAL/01/RTI/2010 DATED 6.10.2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO ADV.D.B.BINU.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF 61ST MEETING OF THE SUB COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 7.9.2010.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1B TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON 24.9.2011.

EXHIBIT R1C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AERODROME LICENCE ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1D TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.2.2010.

EXHIBIT R1E TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND AIR INDIA LTD.

EXHIBIT R1F TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

EXHIBIT R1G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.4.2012. W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 46

EXHIBIT R1H TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.2015 APPOINTING SMT.ATHIYARATH KOTHAI RAMANI.

EXHIBIT R1I TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.2015 APPOINTING SRI.KURIAKOSE ROY PAUL.

EXHIBIT R1J TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 23.6.2016.

EXHIBIT R1K TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING DR.T.M.THOMAS ISSAC AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1L TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING ADV.V.S.SUNIL KUMAR AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1M TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING ADV.MATHEW T.THOMAS AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1N TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.2016 APPOINTING SRI.S.M.VIJAYANAND AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1O TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENSE WITH RENEWED PERIOD UPTO 29.12.2017.

EXHIBIT R1P TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 1.7.2015.

EXHIBIT R1Q TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 6.4.2015.

EXHIBIT R1R TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.8.1997.

EXHIBIT R1S TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

GO(MS)NO.22/2001/TRAN DATED 17.9.2001.

EXHIBIT R1T TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 3.11.2001.

EXHIBIT R1U TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6950/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 24.2.2009 ALONG WITH BIO-DATA SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER RBEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER NO.CIAL/HR-40A DATED 27.6.2009 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CIAL-HR-

1A DATED 15.7.2009 ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) OF 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.CIAL/HR-19A-VII DATED 26.7.2010 ISSUED BY HEAD (HR) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CIAL-

MD/SC-LET/2011-12 DATED 15.11.2011 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 24.11.2011 SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CIAL/HR-

40 A DATED 31.8.2012 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.9.2012 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 6.12.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT BY MR.A.G.KESAVAN.

EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF LEETER NO.CIAL/SPIO/RTI DATED 7.1.2011 ISSUED BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT TO MR.A.G.KESAVAN WITH ENCLOSURES.

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 48

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.6.2019 IN A.P.NOS.1212(1)/13/SIC,1038/ (6)/14,2126(3)/14,2128(3)/14,2132(3)/14,213 6(3)/14,2139(3)/14,2143(3)/14,2145(3)/14,21 49(3)/14,2151(3)/14,2155(3)/14,148(1)/17,89 9(1)/18,2989(3)/18 AND 2990(3)/18,CP NOS.568(1)2010/SIC,567(1)/2010/SIC,569(1)/2 010/SIC,570(1)/2010/SIC,571(1)/2010/SIC,572 (1)/2010/SIC PASSED BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON 24.09.2011.

EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENCE ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.02.2010.

EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND AIR INDIA LTD.

EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT.

EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.04.2012.

EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.08.2015 APPOINTING SMT.ATHIYARATH KOTHAI RAMANI.

EXHIBIT R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.08.2015 APPOINTING SRI.KIURIAKOSE ROY PAUL.

EXHIBIT R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 23.06.2016.

EXHIBIT R1 L TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.09.2016 APPOINTING DR.T.M.THOMAS ISSAC AS DIRECTOR OF THE W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 49

COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 M TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.09.2016 APPOINTING ADV.V.S.SUNIL KUMAR AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 N TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.09.2016 APPOINTING ADV.MATHEW T.THOMAS AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 O TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.09.2016 APPOINTING SRI.S.M.VIJAYANAND AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.

EXHIBIT R1 P TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENSE WITH RENEWED PERIOD UPTO 29.12.2017.

EXHIBIT R1 Q TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 01.07.2015.

EXHIBIT R1 R TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 06.04.2015.

EXHIBIT R1 S TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.1997.

EXHIBIT R1 T TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

GO(MS)NO.22/2001/TRAN DATED 17.09.2001.

EXHIBIT R1 U TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 03.11.2001.

EXHIBIT R1 V TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.

EXHIBIT R1 W TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 92ND BOARD MEETING HELD ON 08.09.2012.

EXHIBIT R1 X TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 25.07.2019 IN WPC NO.20383 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT R1 Y TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2019.

EXHIBIT R1 Z TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2019. W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8011/2014 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR WRITTEN TEST ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07-04-2009

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISION SELECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15-07-2009

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LAND ACQUISITION CERTIFICATE FOR THE ACQUISTION OF 84.65 ARES OF PROPERTY FROM THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORT ISSUED BY AIRPORT SOCIETY DATED 08-04-2008

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPPY OF POSTING LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BY APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE SECURITY WING OF CIAL DATED 16-12-2009

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESULT SHEET OF THE BASIC AVSEC COURSE CONDUCTED FROM 03-08-2009 TO 14-08-2009 AT COCHIN FOR CIAL SECURITY

EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE BASIC AVSEC COURSE CONDUCTED FROM 03.08.2009 TO 14.08.2009 AT COCHIN FOR CIAL SECURITY

EXHIBIT P5(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRAINING CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SMITHS DETECTION AUSTRALIA AND ASIA PACIFIC CONDUCTED FROM 2-11-2009 TO 5-11-2009

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF RESULT SHEET OF X-RAY SCREENERS CERTIFICATION TEST ON 19-11-2009 AND 20-11-2009 AT COCHIN FOR CIAL SECURITY

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHTOOCOPY OF REGULAR SCALE APPOINTMENT ORDER BY APPOINTING 31 PERSONS INCLUDING THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT (SECURITY) DATED 18-03-2011

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESULT SHEET OF X-RAY SCREENERS TEST HELD AT RDCOS CHENNAI FOR AIRLINES PERSONAL FROM 10.07.2012 -

W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 51

11.07.2012

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESULT SHEET ON IN-LINE-

X-RAY SCREENERS TEST HELD AT CIAL FROM 06.08.2012 - 07.08.2012

EXHIBIT 9(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION , MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION FOR THE TEST CONDUCTED FROM 6-8-12 TO 7-8-12

EXHIBIT P9(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY TIRWIN AVIATION ACADEMY HELD AT COCHIN ON 13-08-2010

EXHIBIT P9(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY TIRWIN AVIATION ACADEMY HELD AT COCHIN ON 12-7-2013

EXHIBIT P9(D) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY CIAL FOR THE TRAINING SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COURSE MODULES FROM 14-11-2011 TO 15-11-2011

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROBATIONARY EXTENSION LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22-12-2012

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROBATIONARY EXTENSION LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08-03-2013

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROBATIONARY EXTENSION LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR DATED 15-06-2013

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROBATIONARY EXTENSION LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR DATED 26-09-2013

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT REGARDING THE DETECTION OF CORROSIVE FROM THE BAGGAGE BY THE PETITIONER DTD 27-2-11

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TERMINATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15-11-2013

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE TEST OF PROBATION EXTENDED W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 52

EMPLOYEES (22 PERSONS EXTENDED) DATED 13.12.2011

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 16-11-2013

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.14

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST SENT BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE CHIEF MINISTER/CHAIRMAN CIAL DATED 1-2-2014.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

EXT.R1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

EXT.R2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN OF THE RESPONDENT AS ON 31.3.14

EXT.R3: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 24.9.2011

EXT.R4: TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENCE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT

EXT.R5: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.25.2.10

EXT.R6: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.22.6.2000 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND AIR INDIA LTD.

EXT.R7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DT.19.5.97 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

EXT.R8: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER INVITING APPLICATION FOR THE OF ASSISTANT SECURITY (TRAINEE)

EXT.R9: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS FOR THE POST OF ASST. SECURITY (TRAINEE)

EXT.R10: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 18.8.15 APPOINTING SMT.ATHIYARATH KOTHAI RAMANI

EXT.R11: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD W.P.(C) Nos.6949/2013,6950/2013,12328/2013,7219/2014 & 8011/2014 53

ON 18.8.15 APPOINTING SRI.KURIAKOSE ROY PAUL

EXT.R12: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 23.6.2016

EXT.R13: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.16 APPOINTING DR.T.M.THOMAS ISSAC AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXT.R14: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.16 APPOINTING ADV.V.S.SUNIL KUMAR AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXT.R15: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.16 APPOINING ADV.MATHEW T.THOMAS AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXT.R16: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27.9.16 APPOINTING SRI.S.M.VIJAYANAD AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

EXT.R17: TRUE COPY OF THE AERODROME LICENSE WITH RENEWED PERIOD UPTO 29.12.17

EXT.R18: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DT.1.7.15

EXT.R.19: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DT.6.4.15

EXT.R20: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.8.97

EXT.R21: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.22/2001/TRAN DT.17.9.01

EXT.R22: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 3.11.01

EXT.R23: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.