AP Nurses Association Does Not Perform Public Functions, Writ Won't Lie Against Appointment Of Election Officer By State Govt: High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by a nurse challenging the conduct of elections to the AP Government Nurses Association, holding that disputes relating to elections of a private society cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the Andhra Pradesh Government Nurses Association is a private body constituted for the welfare of its members and that the mere appointment of the Election Officer by the State did not transform the Association into a public body. The Court observed: “Firstly, it is not the case of the Petitioner that the Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution or that it performs any public functions. The only reason given for maintaining the writ petition was that the State Government had appointed Respondent No.3 to conduct elections and hence, writ petitions are maintainable. The mere appointment of Respondent No.3 to conduct elections would not alter the nature of the society nor can it be said that Respondent No.3 was discharging public duties or public functions. With multidimensional functions of various authorities, the thin line between “public functions” and “private functions” discharged by a person is often blurred and it is necessary to maintain a writ petition after determining the nature of the duty to be enforced by the body or authority rather than identifying the authority against whom it is sought. In this case, Respondent No.3 is not discharging any statutory duties, 14 but was acting merely as an Election Officer". "As narrated above, the dispute is regarding elections to a private society. There is no statutory duty and the functions are not in the realm of public duty or functions," the court said. The petitioner, a staff nurse at Kurnool Government General Hospital, challenged the Election Officer's refusal to accept her nomination for the post of President of the State Executive and sought to set aside the entire election process. She contended that she had been a continuous member of the Association for over five years and was eligible to contest, but was prevented from filing her nomination. She further alleged that the appointment of a District Cooperative Officer as Election Officer and the conduct of elections violated the Association's bye-laws and the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001.Opposing the plea, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had participated in the consensus meeting regarding the election process and accepted the appointment of the Election Officer. They further pointed out that she had contested the district-level elections and was unsuccessful. Under the Association's bye-laws, only elected district delegates can participate in the State Executive Committee elections. Having lost at the district level, the petitioner was ineligible to do so.Examining the nature of the Association, the Court noted that it was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and functioned as a private association established to advance the interests of its members. It further observed that the Election Officer, while conducting the elections, was not performing any statutory or public duty.Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498, the Court reiterated that a writ under Article 226 is maintainable only where the impugned action has a public law element and a direct nexus with the discharge of a public duty. Mere involvement of a government officer does not convert an internal dispute of a private body into a matter of public law. Holding that the controversy related solely to the internal electoral affairs of a private society and involved no statutory obligation or public function, the Court dismissed both writ petitions as not maintainable without costs. All pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.Case Title: D. Manjula Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Case Number: W.P. Nos. 24577 of 2024 and 692 of 2026Counsel for Petitioner: Prakash BuddarapuCounsel for Respondent: S Srinivasa Rao & GP for CooperationClick Here To Read/Download Order

AP Nurses Association Does Not Perform Public Functions, Writ Won't Lie Against Appointment Of Election Officer By State Govt: High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

AP Nurses Association Does Not Perform Public Functions, Writ Won't Lie Against Appointment Of Election Officer By State Govt: High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers