Judgment :

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment dated April 25, 2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 554 of 2006, the High Court has held that the writ petition against Respondent No. 1, namely, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (for short, 'ICID'), Under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable as it is not a 'State' Under Article 12 of the Constitution. It has also held that its actions or not amenable for judicial review Under Article 226of the Constitution, either. It resulted in dismissal of the said intra-court appeal, which was filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in the writ petition filed by the Appellant taking the same view. The Appellant even filed review petition seeking review of the judgment dated April 25, 2011, which met the same fate as the said review petition was dismissed by the High Court by orders dated August 05, 2011.

3. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the issue agitated before us pertains to the maintainability of the writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondents herein. This has arisen in the following circumstances:

4. The Appellant herein was appointed to the post of Secretary, ICID, vide letter of appointment dated January 03, 1997. Pursuant to that letter, he joined the services in ICID on January 20, 1997. Thereafter, his services were terminated vide letter dated August 15, 1999, with immediate effect from August 16, 1999, on the ground that the same were no longer required by the ICID. It was followed by a communication dated August 27, 1999 whereby the Appellant was given two cheques in the sum of ` 77,388/- and ` 98,141.50/- towards three months' basic pay in lieu of notice and the dues towards contributory provident fund respectively. It would be pertinent to note that these dues were given pursuant to the request of the Appellant contained in his letter dated August 19, 1999 claiming three months' salary as per the rules as also payments for provident fund. After receiving these cheques, the Appellant requested for revocation of the order of termination, which was followed by reminders dated September 02, 1999 and October 16, 1999. As he did not receive any response to the aforesaid requests, he approached the High Court by filing writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the termination of his services by the ICID was an act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Plea of the Appellant in this behalf was that the said order of termination was without holding the inquiry and no reason was given to dispense with the said inquiry as well and, therefore, was in violation of ICID Employees Conduct Rules, 1967, particularly Rule 33(b) thereof, which mandates reason to be given for dispensing with the inquiry.

5. In the writ petition, the Appellant also specifically took the plea that ICID is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and further it is involved in performing public duty. It was averred that ICID is under the control of Government and the criteria and test set out for determining whether a corporation or society is a 'State' or 'other authority' Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is satisfied inasmuch as ICID was established by the Central Government by giving a grant of ` 15,000/- in 1950; that there are instances when the Government officers had come on deputation to the society; that the Central Government has been paying the subscription for administrative and other functions of ICID and, hence, the financial control rests with the Government; that the staffing pattern of the ICID is in accord with the line of the Government; that ICID has monopoly status since it is the only society established by the Government of India to bring together information on irrigation from India and outside; that the Government provide