1. This Court issued rule nisi on 19-4-2007.

2. Counter affidavits, additional affidavits and reply affidavits were filed and written arguments also were submitted in addition to the submissions made by the respective Counsel in open Court. Certain subsequent events also were brought to the notice of the Court and apart from the material papers initially placed, additional material papers as well had been placed before this Court.

3. M/s.Ghanta Infrastructure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, represented by its Director Sri M.Raghuveer, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings ARG-II/PJ/FY07/04568 dated 12-12-2006 and the consequential proceedings ARG 1/PJ/FY07/04730 dated 22-12-2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner in respect of the business and assets of the 3rd respondent and to pass such other suitable orders.

4. The 1st respondent is Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., (in short hereinafter referred to as "ACRIL"). The 2nd respondent is Mr.S.Khasnobis and 3rd respondent is Spectrum Power Generation Limited. The 4th respondent is Dr.A.V. Mohan Rao, 5th respondent is Pinnacle Overseas Assets Ltd., represented by its Managing Director. 6th respondent is Lehman Brothers Commercial Corporation Asia Limited, Hong Kong.

5. The stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2 virtually is the same. The 3rd respondent also had taken similar stand just akin to the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2. The 4th respondent is not contesting the matter. Respondents 5 and 6, though represented by different Counsel, in substance, the stand taken by them appears to be the same. No doubt it is contended on behalf of the 6th respondent that the 6th respondent in fact is an unnecessary party.

6. Sri Uday Lalit, the learned senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner while making elaborate submissions had taken this Court through the affidavits, counter affidavits, reply affidavit and also the relevant material papers placed before this Court. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through different provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience). While making elaborate submissions, the learned senior Counsel would maintain that the stand taken by the respondents that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground that the 1st respondent is neither an authority nor a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot be a sustainable ground since if the functions, obligations and the powers of the 1st respondent, if carefully examined, these being powers flowing out of the statutory provisions conferred by different provisions of the statute, this lis would fall within the realm of Public Law and hence the writ petitioner is entitled to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned senior Counsel also would maintain that the 1st respondent is bound to follow the provisions of the Act and also the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The learned senior Counsel while further elaborating his submissions had specifically pointed out to Sections 9 and 13 of the Act and also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his stand that the Writ Petition is maintainable. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant definitions, viz., Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) and also Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to source test, functional test and off-set test and would maintain that a Private Authority discharging Public functions, also is amenable to writ jurisdiction and the best test would be the 'functional test'. Incidentally, the learned s