ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 24th October 2018 in Writ Petition bearing No. 5195 of 2015. The impugned judgment relies upon the earlier coordinate bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nandkumar Nivrutti Baptiwale v. Automotive Research Association of India and others, 2002 (2) Mh.L.J 191. which decision, notwithstanding the reliance placed upon Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training and others, (1991) 4 SCC 578, a decision which has been expressly overruled in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others,(2002) 5 SCC 1111) correctly applies the tests for determining whether the respondent Association is a State.

3. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) , the 7 Judge Bench of this Court explicated the tests for determining whether a body comes within the purview of Article 12. Same being:

1) the formation of the body;

2) objects and functions;

3) management and control

4) financial aid, etc.

4. The decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) reiterated the law laid down by the 5 Judge Bench d