| the appellant had been managing the canteen up to the year 1982 and thereafter introduced the contract system for maintaining the canteen so established that though the management of the canteen had been entrusted to the contractors from time to time the personnel employed in the canteen were retained by all the contractors and they have been paid salaries through contractors. no writ would lie against the appellant inasmuch as the appellant is a company which is not an authority or a person against whom a writ would lie. a writ would not lie against the appellant inasmuch as the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and as an incident thereto has provided a canteen to its workmen pursuant to an obligation under section 46 of the act. on behalf of the respondent heavy reliance was placed on this decision and also the decision of the high court in t gattaiahs case to contend that in running a canteen under section 46 of the act the appellant was discharging a public duty and therefore a writ of mandamus would lie against it. the workmen in the canteen had been working right from its inception that is since 1967 that from 1976 onwards after expiry of the contract with the industrial catering services they had been directly working with the appellant without any contractor that they sought for regularization of their services by letter dated 28 february 1978 that the said letter was corrected and redrafted by the personnel manager to indicate the idea of floating an association society to run the canteen that this modified request contained in ex w 49 was stated to be contradictory to the stand taken by the workmen all through. |