JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for direction to respondent to pay him amount of arrears of salary from June 1993 until September 1993, the gratuity, provident fund, etc. with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 1-10-1993 till actual payment of the entire amounts due and further direction to respondents to pay the petitioner's amount of Rs. 14,000/- towards encashment of earned leave for 46 days with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from 1-10-1993 till actual payment of the same and also direction to respondents to settle the account of the petitioner in respect of other allowances such as leave travel allowance, travelling allowance, maintenance of the office cum residence, medical reimbursement.

2. The respondent is Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited. Unless the respondent falls within the meaning of the State or agency/instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, the claim of the petitioner does not deserve to be examined on merits. We shall, therefore, first see whether Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited (respondent) is a State or agency/instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution or not.

3. In this regard, the averment made by the petitioner is that the respondent is deemed Government company registered under the Companies Act; it is a joint venture of the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (I.C.I.C.I.), Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I.), Industrial Finance Corporation of India (I.F.C.I.) and other Corporations of the Government of Maharashtra and Nationalised Banks and the entire share capital is held amongst themselves. It is on this basis alone that according to the petitioner the respondent is a State or agency/instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondent has, however, denied that is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Though it is not in dispute that until 1-6-1995 the respondent company was a deemed Government Company under section 619-B of Companies Act, but the State Government has had no control over the affairs of the said company much less deep and pervasive control. It is submitted that it is not a Government undertaking in any sense and the only fact that it has equity from banks and Industrial Infrastructure Corporation does not make it covered under Article 12. It gets no grant for its survival. It has to earn its livelihood through fee base income. The company does not discharge any public function nor public duty nor any public function or duty is cast upon it by the State or by Government orders. Even otherwise, it is submitted that after 1-6-1995, the respondent company has ceased to be deemed Government company even under section 619-B of the Companies Act as composition and constitution of the shareholders of the company have undergone substantial change. It is, thus, submitted that the respondent company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

5. The question whether a Body, Association, Corporation or Company is State or agency/instrumentality covered under Article 12 had been made of debate in large number of cases before Supreme Court from time to time. A few important decisions in this regard being (Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal)1, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1857; (Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual)2, 1969(1) S.C.C. 585; (Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi)3, 1975(1) S.C.C. 421; (Aja Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravandi)4, 1981(1) S.C.C. 722; (Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India)5, 1981(1) S.C.C. 449; (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India)6, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628; (B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute)7, 1983(4) S.C.C. 582; (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document