ARTICLE 12 “STATE” in Indian Constitution

1. “the State’’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Therefore, ‘State’ includes:

• Government and Parliament of India i.e the Executive and Legislature of the Union
• Government and Legislature of each State i.e the Executive and Legislature of the various States of India
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India
• All local and other authorities who are under the control of the Government of India

Authorities – Webster Dictionary defines authority as a person or body exercising power to command, meaning thereby power to make laws, orders, regulations, bye laws, notification etc which have force of law and power to implement those laws.

Local Authorities – Sec 3(31), General Clauses Act defines local authorities like municipalities, district board, Panchayats, Improvement Trust and Mining Settlement Board.

Other Authorities– In University of Madras v Santa Bai AIR 1954 Mad 67 the Madras High Court held that other authorities could only indicate authorities of a like nature –ejusdem generis meaning authorities were only entities exercising governmental or sovereign functions. It does not include natural or juristic person such as University unless it is maintained by State.

Initially, the State was treated as exhaustive and confined to the authorities or those which could be read ejusdem generis with the authorities mention in the definition of Art. 12. Apex Court held in Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 `authority is a public administrative agency or corporation having quasi- governmental powers and authorised to administer a revenue- producing public enterprise. The expression “other authorities” in Article 12 has been held to- be wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute and functioning within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India.

In The Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628 the definition of ‘State’ came to be under stood with reference to remedies available against it. Thus a statutory corporation, with regulations framed by such corporation pursuant to statutory powers was considered a State.  This decision was challenged, on the ground that in awarding the contract, the Authority had failed to abide by its own stipulations, and in treating similarly situated persons differently, had violated Article 14. The first question, therefore, was whether the International Airport Authority was subject to Article 14 obligations.

Facts: International Airport Authority is a corporate body constituted under the International Airport Authority Act, 43 of 1971.

• On 3^rdJanuary, 1977 It issued a notice for inviting Registered IInd class Hotelier having at least 5 years of experience for putting up and running a IInd class Restaurant and two snack bars at Bombay Airport for a period of 3 years.
• Six tenders were received in the response of the notice.
• Out of the six received tenders, the tender of only the 4^threspondent was entertained as it was complete and offered the highest amount of license fee. All other tenders were rejected because they were incomplete.
• The first respondent got prepared everything for the purpose of running the restraint and snack bars.
• But, since the 4^threspondent did not satisfy the description of the second class hotelier having a 5 years experience as stated in the tender notice, the first respondent in addition to this called upon the evidence by the 4^th respondent proving that they are not the second class hoteliers.
• A letter was made by the 4^threspondent in response to the evidence stating they had considerable 10 years of experience in catering to reputed commercial houses, training centres, banks and factories which appeared that they did not satisfy the criteria of 2^nd class restraint of 5 years experience as earlier set out in paragraph 1 of the notice.
• Satisfied with the information given by the fourth respondents, the first respondent accepted their tender on the terms and conditions set out in its letter.
• The 4^threspondent got prepared with everything for running the restaurant and snack bars. But the 1^st respondent was unable to handover the possession of sites because A.S Irani was already running his restaurant and snack bar under the previous contract.
• Thus, Irani filed a Civil Suit in the Civil Court of Bombay against the respondents by challenging the decision of the 1^strespondent to accept the tender of the 4^th
• The fourth respondents, on the other hand, contended that the requirement of the tender as stated must be a registered second grade hotelier was meaningless because the grading is given by the Bombay City Municipal Corporation only to hotels or restaurants and not to persons running them and, therefore there could be no second grade hotelier.
• Earlier, K.S Irani obtained an ad interim injunction against the respondents, but after hearing to the respondents, the court dismissed the notice.
• He filed an appeal in the High Court which was also dismissed.
• On the same day two sites were handed over to the 4^threspondent which was different from the sites held by A.S Irani.
• In addition to this an Ad interim injunction was obtained by the first respondent against A.S Irani from running the restaurant and snack bar and also from entering the premises except during winding up of the sites.
• S Irani again appealed against this order which was ultimately rejected by Supreme Court.
• He again filed an appeal to prevent the 4^threspondents from obtaining the contract given by the 1^st respondents but still was put down by court and hence all attempts made by Irani failed.
• Later on, Ramana Dayaram Shetty who didn’t submit any tender, was just a mere stranger but still filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay by challenging their decision of accepting the tender of the 4^th
• But, unfortunately his petition was also rejected and then he made an appeal to the division bench of the High Court against the order rejecting the writ petition but that too was rejected.
• Many issues were raised and discussed. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the High Court rejecting the writ petition was confirmed.