Export Promotion Council For Leather Is "State" Under Article 12; Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Bench noted that CLE is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the action impugned bears a public law character.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the Export Promotion Council for Leather (CLE) is an authority or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and is consequently amenable to writ jurisdiction. While partly allowing a petition filed by CLE's former Executive Director, the Bench set aside two articles of charge and quashed his prolonged suspension, while permitting disciplinary proceedings on the remaining charges to continue.
In the matter, the dispute began pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in 2019. The charges largely related to his tenure as Secretary of the Central Waqf Council, where he had served on deputation, and to events surrounding his repatriation to CLE from the National Book Trust (NBT).
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “On a cumulative assessment of the material, this Court holds that CLE answers the description of an authority or instrumentality of the State within Article 12 of the Constitution”.
Advocate Biswajit Das appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli appeared for the respondent.
Rejecting CLE's objection to maintainability, the Court undertook a detailed examination of the Council's structure, functions, and degree of governmental control. It noted that CLE performs a significant role under the foreign trade regime, including functions connected with compulsory registration mechanisms in the leather export sector.
The Court observed that constitutional status depends on the cumulative assessment of a body's functions, control, and public character rather than its corporate form.
“In any event, and independently of the Article 12 finding, CLE is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the action impugned bears a public law character. The present action does. The Petitioner is not merely seeking enforcement of an ordinary private contract of service. He challenges a charge-sheet and suspension founded upon his tenure in a statutory body, communications from public authorities, deputation and repatriation through Government-linked institutions, and orders passed by this Court concerning his joining and salary position. The dispute therefore carries a public law character sufficient to sustain the writ petition”, the Bench further observed.
The Bench also relied on provisions in CLE's governing documents empowering the Central Government to issue binding directions regarding promotion and development of international trade.
“The chronology of events reinforces the conclusion. The Petitioner was repatriated by NBT in May, 2018. CLE did not permit physical joining. In December, 2018, this Court recorded CLE’s statement that it would pay salary from 9th July, 2018 till further orders. The charge-sheet was issued on 1 st March, 2019. The suspension followed on 15th April, 2019. By then, the events forming the basis of the charges were already matters of record. CLE did not identify any live operational risk which required the Petitioner to be kept out of service”, the Bench said.
On merits, the Court declined to quash Articles I to V of the charge-sheet, which concerned alleged irregularities during the petitioner's tenure at the Central Waqf Council. However, it directed that the inquiry continue only after ensuring access to relevant documents and a fair opportunity of defence.
The Court, however, found Articles VI and VII unsustainable. These charges alleged that the petitioner failed to join CLE after repatriation and behaved discourteously. The Court noted that CLE itself had refused to permit his physical joining and had later treated salary payments as constituting joining or deemed joining. Holding that CLE could not penalise the petitioner for circumstances created by its own conduct, the Court quashed both charges.
Finding the suspension order to be mechanical and unsupported by any assessment of necessity, the Court also set aside the petitioner's suspension and directed release of consequential service benefits.
Cause Title: Ali Ahmad Khan v. Council For Leather Exports And Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4994)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Biswajit Das, Deepak Kumar and Neha Yadav, Advocates.
Respondents: Nalin Kohli, Senior Advocate, Anshul Malik and Ayuushman Arora, Advocates.