1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2394 OF 2019

(@SLP(C) No. 30924/2018)

RAMAKRISHNA MISSION & ANR. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

KAGO KUNYA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal has arisen from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gauhati

High Court in a Writ Appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge. The learned

Single Judge, by a judgment dated 7 September 2016, held that Ramakrishna Mission

is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In appeal, the

Division Bench held that while Ramakrishna Mission may not be ‘State’ within the

meaning of Article 12 in the strict sense of the term, nonetheless its hospital at Itanagar

performs a public duty and in consequence would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution on a liberal interpretation of the expression ‘author-

ity’ in that Article.

3 The first respondent joined the Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Itanagar on 15

March 1980 as a General Duty Worker. He was regularised with effect from 1 August

2

1980 by a letter dated 23 July 1980. On 31 March 1982, the first respondent was

promoted to the substantive post of Nursing Aid. He was made permanent on 13 April

1984. Subsequently on 31 December 2005, he was promoted as an Office Assistant

with effect from 1 October 2005.

4 The conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are governed by the

Service Rules. Among them is Rule 18 which provides for superannuation in the

following terms:

“18. SUPERANNUATION (RETIREMENT):

(i) A permanent employee/staff shall normally retire from the ser-

vices of the Hospital after 35 years of service or an attaining the age

of 60 (sixty) years. Provided further, the Management in the service

of the Hospital may extend the service of an employee/staff even af-

ter 35 years of service or he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years,

whichever is earlier, subject to his medical fitness, in slots of 1 (one)

years at a time.

(ii) However, an employee/staff may be retired earlier if in the event

of suffering from physical or mental incapacity in the discharge of his

duties provided the physical or mental incapacity of the

employee/staff is established by a Medical Board duly constituted by

the Management.”

On 31 January 2015, the hospital informed the first respondent that he would be retiring

from service on 24 March 2015 in accordance with the Service Rules, consequent upon

the completion of thirty-five years of service.

5 The first respondent instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

before the Gauhati High Court to challenge the above communication and sought a writ

of mandamus to allow him to continue in service until he completes thirty-five years of

service, counting the appointment from 31 March 1982 when he was substantively ap-

pointed as a Nursing Aid.

6 The appellants raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition

on the ground that neither Ramakrishna Mission nor its hospital is ‘State’ within the

3

meaning of Article 12 and they are not amenable, in any event, to the writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7 The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. While rejecting the objections

of the appellants to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held

that the appellants fall within the description of ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. A

direction was issued, on merits, to the hospital to treat the date of appointment of the

first respondent as 31 March 1982 and not 15 March 1980.

8 In consequence, the first respondent was effectively granted an extension of ser-

vice for two years beyond the date of superannuation as computed on the basis of the

initial date of joining service. The first respondent has been paid his terminal dues on

the basis of the date of retirement as computed by the hospital.

9 The Writ Appeal by the appellants failed before a Division Bench of the High

Court.The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, principally relied upon two cir-

cumstances:

(i)The hospital was availing of funds for a part of its expenditure and was running a

sixty bedded hospital which constitutes a public duty; and

(ii)There was a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court in Satyabrata

Chakraborty v State of Arunachal Pradesh

1

, holding that Ramakrishna Mission

fell with the category of ‘other authorities’ under Articles 12 and 226 of the Consti-

tution. The High Court held that this decision of the learned Single Judge which

had held the field for thirteen years should not be disturbed. It was further held

that the appellant is running a very large hospital in the State and utilised public

funds for a part of its operation and would be amenable to writ jurisdiction. While

answering the preliminary issues against the appellants, the High Court directed

that the appeal be placed for hearing subsequently.

1 2005 (4) GLT 150

4

10While entertaining the present proceedings, this Court by its order dated 19 No-

vember 2018 issued notice and granted a stay of the judgment and order of the High

Court dated 6 April 2018. In pursuance of the order issuing notice, a counter affidavit

has been filed on behalf of the Union of India through the Ministry of Tribal Affairs as

well as by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

11The State government, in support of the view which has been taken by the High

Court, has submitted that:

(i)The land over which Ramakrishna Mission Hospital was constructed was allotted

to the appellants on 12 July 1984 on a concessional rate;

(ii)Subsequently on 4 May 2005, additional land admeasuring 4.66 acres was also

allotted on a concessional rate; and

(iii)The hospital receives grants from the State government.

12The counter affidavit filed by the Union of India does not require to be dealt with,

since the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is not concerned with the subject matter of the present

appeal.

13On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted by Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi,

and Mr K V Viswanathan, learned senior counsel that the High Court in the present

case has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree

Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v V R Rudani

2

,

without noticing the clear distinction in that case both on facts and law. It was urged that

the aforesaid judgment dealt with a case of a public trust which was managing a college

affiliated to a University. The dispute in regard to the closure of the college and the con-

sequent non-payment of salaries squarely fell within the purview of the regulatory provi-

sions contained in the Ordinances of the University. That apart, it has been submitted

that:

2 (1989) 2 SCC 691

5

(i)No public duty is performed by the first respondent;

(ii)Ramakrishna Mission has established and manages the hospital purely as a vol-

untary service to society;

(iii)The conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are not governed ei-

ther by statute or by subordinate legislation and hence, there is no public law ele-

ment involved in enforcing a purely private contract of service; and

(iv)As a result of the impugned judgment of the High Court, the entire range of activi-

ties of Ramakrishna Mission will fall within the description of an ‘authority’ within

the meaning of Article 226.

On these grounds, it was sought to be urged that the judgment of the High Court is con-

trary to a line of precedent of this Court, to which we will advert a little later. That apart,

learned senior counsel submitted that each of the circumstances which weighed with

the High Court in coming to the conclusion that the appellants are amenable to the ex-

ercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is contrary to the settled position in law.

14On the other hand, Mr A Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

of Arunachal Pradesh has placed reliance on the statement of facts contained in the

counter affidavit, as noticed earlier. Learned counsel submitted that the Ramakrishna

Mission Hospital is the only hospital in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and hence, by

virtue of its monopoly status, must be held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under

Article 226. That apart, it was urged that the hospital receives grants in aid from the

State government. The function of conducting a hospital in the State of Arunachal

Pradesh, it was urged, must be held to be a public function rendering the appellants

amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

15The rival submissions fall for consideration.

16Ramakrishna Mission runs a 263 bedded hospital at Itanagar. The grant in aid

which is provided by the State government covers the cost of running 60 beds out of

6

263 bedded hospital. Relevant factual data in regard to the nature and extent of the

grants has been placed on record. About 32.26 per cent of the total income of the hos-

pital for 2014-2015, 23.33 for 2015-16 and 22.53 per cent for 2016-17 was from the

grants provided by the State government. The revenue expenditure, the audited bal-

ance sheets and accounts of the hospital indicate that 35.23 per cent of the expenditure

for 2014-2015, 23.83 per cent for 2015-2016 and 20.57 per cent for 2016-2017 was

borne from the finances provided by the State government.

17In assessing whether the appellants are amenable to the writ jurisdiction under

Article 226, we proceed on the basis of the following circumstances which have been

pressed in aid both on behalf of the original petitioner before the High Court and, in re-

sponse to the present appeal, by the State government:

(i)A portion of the income of the hospital is generated out of the grants which are

received from the State; and

(ii)Land has been made available for the construction of the hospital by the State

government on a concessional rate.

The grant by the State government covers only a portion, namely, 60 beds out of the

263-beds of the hospital at Itanagar. Significantly, the State government does not con-

trol the day to day functioning of the hospital. The management of the hospital is exclu-

sively with the Ramakrishna Mission. Since the State government finances through its

grants a portion of the income of the hospital, it requires the audited accounts to be

submitted to the State government for scrutiny.

18The basic issue before this Court is whether the functions performed by the hos-

pital are public functions, on the basis of which a writ of mandamus can lie under Article

226 of the Constitution.

19The hospital is a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission and is subject to its control.

The Mission was established by Swami Vivekanand, the foremost disciple of Sri Ra-

7

makrishna Paramhansa. Service to humanity is for the organisation co-equal with ser-

vice to God as is reflected in the motto “Atmano Mokshartham Jagad Hitaya Cha”. The

main object of the Ramakrishna Mission is to impart knowledge in and promote the

study of Vedanta and its principles propounded by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa and

practically illustrated by his own life and of comparative theology in its widest form. Its

objects include, inter alia to establish, maintain, carry on and assist schools, colleges,

universities, research institutions, libraries, hospitals and take up development and gen-

eral welfare activities for the benefit of the underprivileged/ backward/ tribal people of

society without any discrimination. These activities are voluntary, charitable and non-

profit making in nature. The activities undertaken by the Mission, a non-profit entity are

not closely related to those performed by the state in its sovereign capacity nor do they

partake of the nature of a public duty.

20The Governing Body of the Mission is constituted by members of the Board of

Trustees of Ramakrishna Math and is vested with the power and authority to manage

the organization. The properties and funds of the Mission and its management vest in

the Governing Body. Any person can become a member of the Mission if elected by the

Governing Body. Members on roll form the quorum of the annual general meetings. The

Managing Committee comprises of members appointed by the Governing Body for

managing the affairs of the Mission. Under the Memorandum of Association and Rules

and Regulations of the Mission, there is no governmental control in the functioning, ad-

ministration and day to day management of the Mission. The conditions of service of the

employees of the hospital are governed by service rules which are framed by the

Mission without the intervention of any governmental body.

21In coming to the conclusion that the appellants fell within the description of an au-

thority under Article 226, the High Court placed a considerable degree of reliance on the

8

judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in Andi Mukta (supra). Andi Mukta

(supra) was a case where a public trust was running a college which was affiliated to

Gujarat University, a body governed by State legislation. The teachers of the University

and all its affiliated colleges were governed, insofar as their pay scales were concerned,

by the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. A dispute over pay

scales raised by the association representing the teachers of the University had been

the subject matter of an award of the Chancellor, which was accepted by the govern-

ment as well as by the University. The management of the college, in question, decided

to close it down without prior approval. A writ petition was instituted before the High

Court for the enforcement of the right of the teachers to receive their salaries and termi-

nal benefits in accordance with the governing provisions. In that context, this Court

dealt with the issue as to whether the management of the college was amenable to the

writ jurisdiction. A number of circumstances weighed in the ultimate decision of this

Court, including the following:

(i)The trust was managing an affiliated college;

(ii)The college was in receipt of government aid;

(iii)The aid of the government played a major role in the control, management and

work of the educational institution;

(iv)Aided institutions, in a similar manner as government institutions, discharge a

public function of imparting education to students;

(v)All aided institutions are governed by the rules and regulations of the affiliating

University;

(vi)Their activities are closely supervised by the University; and

(vii)Employment in such institutions is hence, not devoid of a public character and is

governed by the decisions taken by the University which are binding on the man-

agement.

22It was in the above circumstances that this Court came to the conclusion that the

service conditions of the academic staff do not partake of a private character, but are

governed by a right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. A breach

9

of the duty, it was held, would be amenable to the remedy of a writ of mandamus. While

the Court recognized that “the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting rights of people

cannot be put into watertight compartments”, it laid down two exceptions where the

remedy of mandamus would not be available:

“15. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can

issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with

no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to

mandamus…”

23Following the decision in Andi Mukta (supra), this Court has had the occasion to

re-visit the underlying principles in successive decisions. This has led to the evolution of

principles to determine what constitutes a ‘public duty’ and ‘public function’ and whether

the writ of mandamus would be available to an individual who seeks to enforce her

right.

24In VST Industries Ltd v VST Industries Workers’ Union

3

, a two judge Bench of

this Court held that a mere violation of the conditions of service will not provide a valid

basis for the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, in a situation where the

activity does not have the features of a public duty. This Court noted:

“7. In de Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Judicial Review of Administrative

Action, 5th Edn., it is noticed that not all the activities of the private

bodies are subject to private law e.g. the activities by private bodies

may be governed by the standards of public law when its decisions

are subject to duties conferred by statute or when, by virtue of the

function it is performing or possibly its dominant position in the

market, it is under an implied duty to act in the public interest… After

detailed discussion, the learned authors have summarised the

position with the following propositions:

(1) The test of whether a body is performing a public function, and is

hence amenable to judicial review, may not depend upon the source

of its power or whether the body is ostensibly a ‘public’ or a ‘private’

body.

(2) The principles of judicial review prima facie govern the activities

of bodies performing public functions.”

3

(2001) 1 SCC 298

10

“(3) …In the following two situations judicial review will not

normally be appropriate even though the body may be

performing a public function:

(a) Where some other branch of the law more appropriately

governs the dispute between the parties. In such a case, that

branch of the law and its remedies should and normally will be

applied; and

(b) where there is a contract between the litigants. In such a

case the express or implied terms of the agreement should

normally govern the matter. This reflects the normal approach

of English law, namely, that the terms of a contract will normally

govern the transaction, or other relationship between the

parties, rather than the general law. Thus, where a special

method of resolving disputes (such as arbitration or resolution

by private or domestic tribunals) has been agreed upon by the

parties (expressly or by necessary implication), that regime,

and not judicial review, will normally govern the dispute.”

(Emphasis supplied)

25In G Bassi Reddy v International Crops Research Institute

4

, a two judge

Bench of this Court dealt with whether the International Crop Research Institute for the

Semi-Arid Tropics (“ICRISAT”) which is a non-profit research and training centre, is

amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The dispute concerned the

termination of employees of ICRISAT. The Court held that only functions which are

similar or closely related to those that are performed by the State in its sovereign

capacity qualify as ‘public functions’ or a ‘public duty’:

“28.A writ under Article 226 can lie against a “person” if it is a

statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or

statutory duty…ICRISAT has not been set up by a statute nor are its

activities statutorily controlled. Although, it is not easy to define what

a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be said that such

functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the

State in its sovereign capacity. The primary activity of ICRISAT is to

conduct research and training programmes in the sphere of

agriculture purely on a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily

undertaken cannot be said to be a public duty. Besides ICRISAT has

a role which extends beyond the territorial boundaries of India and its

activities are designed to benefit people from all over the world.

While the Indian public may be the beneficiary of the activities of the

Institute, it certainly cannot be said that ICRISAT owes a duty to the

Indian public to provide research and training facilities.”

4(2003) 4 SCC 225

11

Applying the above test, this Court upheld the decision of the High Court that the writ

petition against ICRISAT was not maintainable.

26A similar view was taken in Ramesh Ahluwalia v State of Punjab

5

, where a two

judge Bench of this Court held that a private body can be held to be amenable to the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when it performs public functions which

are normally expected to be performed by the State or its authorities.

27In Federal Bank Ltd. v Sagar Thomas,

6

this Court analysed the earlier

judgements of this Court and provided a classification of entities against whom a writ

petition may be maintainable:

“18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges

is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may

be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority;

(iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v)

a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a

private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private

body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public

nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge

any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a

statutory function.”

(emphasis supplied)

28In Binny Ltd. v V Sadasivan

7

, a two judge Bench of this Court noted the

distinction between public and private functions. It held thus:

“11…It is difficult to draw a line between public functions and private

functions when they are being discharged by a purely private

authority. 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. Bodies therefore exercise public functions

when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the

public interest.”

5 (2012) 12 SCC 331

6 (2013) 10 SCC 733

7(2005) 6 SCC 657

12

The Bench elucidated on the scope of mandamus:

“29. However, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of

public duty. The scope of mandamus is determined by the nature

of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the

authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is

discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in

connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the

public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public

body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such

power is immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law

element in such action…There cannot be any general definition of

public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide

the point.”

(emphasis supplied)

29More recently in K K Saksena v International Commission on Irrigation and

Drainage

8

, another two judge Bench of this Court held that a writ would not lie to

enforce purely private law rights. Consequently, even if a body is performing a public

duty and is amenable to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, all its decisions would not be

subject to judicial review. The Court held thus:

“43.What follows from a minute and careful reading of the

aforesaid judgments of this Court is that if a person or authority is

“State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,

admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a

person or body. However, we may add that even in such cases writ

would not lie to enforce private law rights. There are a catena of

judgments on this aspect and it is not necessary to refer to those

judgments as that is the basic principle of judicial review of an action

under the administrative law. The reason is obvious. A private law is

that part of a legal system which is a part of common law that

involves relationships between individuals, such as law of contract or

torts. Therefore, even if writ petition would be maintainable against

an authority, which is “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution,

before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has

to satisfy that action of such an authority, which is challenged, is in

the domain of public law as distinguished from private law.”

8 (2015) 4 SCC 670

13

Thus, even if the body discharges a public function in a wider sense, there is no public

law element involved in the enforcement of a private contract of service.

30Having analysed the circumstances which were relied upon by the State of

Arunachal Pradesh, we are of the view that in running the hospital, Ramakrishna

Mission does not discharge a public function. Undoubtedly, the hospital is in receipt of

some element of grant. The grants which are received by the hospital cover only a part

of the expenditure. The terms of the grant do not indicate any form of governmental

control in the management or day to day functioning of the hospital. The nature of the

work which is rendered by Ramakrishna Mission, in general, including in relation to its

activities concerning the hospital in question is purely voluntary.

31 Before an organisation can be held to discharge a public function, the function must

be of a character that is closely related to functions which are performed by the State in

its sovereign capacity. There is nothing on record to indicate that the hospital performs

functions which are akin to those solely performed by State authorities. Medical

services are provided by private as well as State entities. The character of the

organisation as a public authority is dependent on the circumstances of the case. In

setting up the hospital, the Mission cannot be construed as having assumed a public

function. The hospital has no monopoly status conferred or mandated by law. That it

was the first in the State to provide service of a particular dispensation does not make it

an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 226. State governments provide concessional

terms to a variety of organisations in order to attract them to set up establishments

within the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The State may encourage them as an

adjunct of its social policy or the imperatives of economic development. The mere fact

that land had been provided on a concessional basis to the hospital would not by itself

14

result in the conclusion that the hospital performs a public function. In the present case,

the absence of state control in the management of the hospital has a significant bearing

on our coming to the conclusion that the hospital does not come within the ambit of a

public authority.

32It has been submitted before us that the hospital is subject to regulation by the

Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010. Does the regulation of

hospitals and nursing homes by law render the hospital a statutory body? Private

individuals and organizations are subject to diverse obligations under the law. The law

is a ubiquitous phenomenon. From the registration of birth to the reporting of death, law

imposes obligations on diverse aspects of individual lives. From incorporation to

dissolution, business has to act in compliance with law. But that does not make every

entity or activity an authority under Article 226. Regulation by a statute does not

constitute the hospital as a body which is constituted under the statute. Individuals and

organisations are subject to statutory requirements in a whole host of activities today.

That by itself cannot be conclusive of whether such an individual or organisation

discharges a public function. In Federal Bank (supra), while deciding whether a private

bank that is regulated by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 discharges any public

function, the court held thus:

“33. …in our view, a private company carrying on banking business

as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a

company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a

person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may

become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce

any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting

positive obligation upon it. We don't find such conditions are fulfilled

in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of

banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity

carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not

confer any such status upon the company nor put any such

15

obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ

under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of

disciplinary action being taken against its employee by the

appellant Bank. The respondent's service with the Bank stands

terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the

respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any

statutory duty on the part of the Bank…”

(emphasis supplied)

33Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction

merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions. The only

exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed

or regulated by a statutory provision. Hence, for instance, in K K Saksena (supra) this

Court held that when an employee is a workman governed by the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, it constitutes an exception to the general principle that a contract of personal

service is not capable of being specifically enforced or performed.

34It is of relevance to note that the Act was enacted to provide for the regulation

and registration of clinical establishments with a view to prescribe minimum standards

of facilities and services. The Act, inter alia, stipulates conditions to be satisfied by

clinical establishments for registration. However, the Act does not govern contracts of

service entered into by the Hospital with respect to its employees. These fall within the

ambit of purely private contracts, against which writ jurisdiction cannot lie. The sanctity

of this distinction must be preserved.

35For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High

Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants are amenable to

the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as an authority within the

meaning of the Article.

16

36For the reasons that we have adduced above, we hold that neither the

Ramakrishna Mission, nor the hospital would constitute an authority within the meaning

of Article 226 of the Constitution.

37Before concluding, it would be necessary to also advert to the fact that while the

learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the appellants are ‘State’ within

the meaning of Article 12, the Division Bench has not accepted that finding. The

Division Bench ruled, as we have noticed earlier, that the appellants do not fall within

the description of ‘State’ under Article 12. This finding has not been challenged before

this Court by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

38Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view that the tests which have been

propounded in the line of authority of this Court in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib

Sehravardi

9

, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

10

and

Jatya Pal Singh v Union of India

11

support the conclusion of the High Court that the

appellants are not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

39For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and

order of the High Court dated 6 April 2018 in Writ Appeal No 25 (AP/2017). In

consequence, the writ petition filed before the High Court namely W.P. (Civil) No 520

(AP/2015) shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

40Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………...............................J.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

.…...…………………...........................J.

[Hemant Gupta]

New Delhi;

February 28, 2019.

9 (1981) 1 SCC 722

10 (2002) 5 SCC 111

11 (2013) 6 SCC 452

17

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30924/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-04-2018

in WA No. 25/2017 passed by the Gauhati High Court At Itanagar)

RAMAKRISHNA MISSION & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KAGO KUNYA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 28-02-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Adv.

Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.

Mr. Arunabha Deb, Adv.

Mr. Shambo Nandy, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR

Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. A. Tewari, Adv.

Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.

Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR

Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.

Mr. Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Ragni Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv.

Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)