Soumitra Pal, J.@mdashThis is an appeal arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was dismissed by the following order:
Since my opinion, the writ application is not maintainable against the respondent-society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, and hence the writ petitioner cannot have any right to file the instant writ application before this Court.
Hence, the writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
2. Mrs. Nag learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order is per incuriam as the writ petition is maintainable against the Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti ("Samiti" in short) in view of principles of law laid down in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.O. No. 020 (W) of 1996 (T.A. Thomas v. Chairman, Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samity and Ors.) where the respondents did not dispute that Samiti is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondents had acted upon the said judgment and had complied the order. A copy of the order dated 30th August, 1996, showing compliance by the Samiti which was filed, is on record.
3. Opposing, Mr. Bahadur, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that in view of the order passed in W.P. No. 012 of 2005 (Balbir Singh v. Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samity and Ors.), the writ petition is not maintainable and appeal should be dismissed.
4. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates, the issue which falls for consideration is whether the Samiti is a State within the meaning Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In order to address the question, it is appropriate to set out the relevant portion of the judgment in T.A. Thomas (supra) which is as under:
It is not disputed that the respondents is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondents being a State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India, must act as a model employer.
(emphasis supplied by us.)
5. It appears from the judgment that the respondents did not dispute that the Samiti is a State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This pronouncement, we find, was accepted by the respondents and acted upon. So far as the order passed in Balbir Singh (supra), is concerned it does not lay down any proposition as the writ petition was not pressed and in those circumstances no order was passed. Thus, the principle of law propounded in T.A. Thomas (supra) that the Samiti is a State still holds good. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is per incuriam in view of the proposition of law laid down in the judgment in T.A. Thomas (supra) and, hence, cannot be sustained. The order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
6. Let the writ petition be placed before the learned Single Judge to be decided on merits.
7. There will be no order as to costs.
Biswanath Sommader, J.
8. I agree.
