Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The prayer in the Original Petition is to declare that the termination of petitioner's services as Casualty Medical Officer by the respondents is illegal, void, nonest and inoperative. The respondents are Lisie Hospital Ernakulam and its Directors. Prima facie there cannot be any doubt that the respondents are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of the latest trend in the case law laid down by the Supreme Court and the English courts, the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 has been widened so as to rope in institutions like the respondents. The learned counsel cited the decision relating to educational institutions reported in Shri. Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani (AIR 1989 SC 1607) and also the latest ruling ofthe Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 295 (Krishnamacharyaluv. Sri. V.H. College of Engineering). But I do not think that the above decisions can be helpful to the petitioner because there the imparting of education has been held to be public duty and therefore, the educational institutions in those cases, which are also subject to certain Government control have been held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction to the Court. 2. But in this case Lisie Hospital is not performing any such public duty. Still the learned counsel argued that the Supreme Court has held that it is duty of the doctors to extend medical assistance and it is also part of the Art.21 of the Constitution, (Please See PT Paramanand Katara v. Union of India & Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 286). 3. Learned counsel also relied on Art.47 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: "47. (1989 (4) SCC 286). 3. Learned counsel also relied on Art.47 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: "47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health: - The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public heal the as anion g its primary duties and, in particular, the-State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health." But I do not think that neither the ruling of the Supreme Court nor Art.47 will help the petitioner because they do not cast any public duty on the respondents in the matter of public health. 4. Yet another ruling relied upon by the learned counsel is Abdul Azeez v. Alleppey Bar Association (1992 (2) KLT 443). In the above case, this Court held that the Bar Association is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court but the facts of the above case are entirely different. In that case, the Bar Association has a statutory obligation under the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act in the matter of issuing welfare stamps and the stamps are issued only through the Bar Association and that too to its members. Therefore, the above ruling is also not helpful to the petitioner. 5. Therefore, according to me, the respondents are to amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. They are not statutory authorities. They are also not having any obligation to discharge any public duty or public function. Lisie Hospital is a hospital run by private individual/ Trust and is not extending the medical benefits as a free medical aid or for charity. Therefore, it is not possible to extend the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to institutions like the respondents. Therefore, I express my inability to issue any writ against the respondents. The Original Petition is therefore, dismissed.