Not all actions of an instrumentality of the State are amenable to Constitutional constraints, and that in matters of domestic affairs, such as the relationship between master and servant arising out of private treaties, the instrumentality does not necessarily become amenable to Constitutional constraints.

( 1 ) IN the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, inter alia, pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the purported notice of lockout issued by the respondent company on August 5, 1992 which is annexure 'i' to the petition and for cancelling, withdrawing and/or rescinding the same.

( 2 ) THE principal challenge in the writ petition initially was that the purported lockout was illegal. During the course of hearing it was submitted by both the parties that the lockout had been lifted in the meantime. In fact, records were produced before this court by both the parties showing that the lockout stood lifted with effect from March 14, 1993. The respondents contended, inter alia, that as the subject matter of the writ petition was no longer in existence on the date of hearing of the writ petition, the substratum of the writ petitioner was gone and the writ petition had become infructuous and should be dismissed on that ground alone. The petitioners on the contrary, contended that in the exigencies of the circumstances the writ court has the power to mould the relief.

( 3 ) IT is undoubtedly true that the writ court can 'mould' the prayer provided there is a logical connection of cause and effect between the original relief prayed for and the 'moulded' prayer.

( 4 ) BEFORE entering into the merits of the case a point raised by the respondents deserves some consideration.

( 5 ) IT has been stated in the writ petition that the Mayurakshi Cotton Mills was completely left abandoned since June, 1986 by the then management owing to financial reasons and the company was ultimately directed to be wound up by the High Court at Calcutta. At that juncture the Government of West Bengal purchased the assets of the company and constituted a committee of management consisting of six members. On that score the petitioners urged that this is an instrumentality of State and as such an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution and as such is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. The respondents contend that the said mill is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution inasmuch as it is not a monopoly concern that it is a trading concern like other industries in the field of cotton productions, that it has to run its business in competition with similar other industries. The respondents contend that as such its functions cannot be termed to be the functions having a public law character or that it is not closely related to Governmental functions.

( 6 ) THIS Court does not consider it necessary in the facts of this particular case to go into the question as to whether the respondent No. 2 is or is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) EVEN if it is assumed that the respondent No. 2 is otherwise an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and is amenable to the Constitutional limitations yet there is a gulf of difference between a Government proper and the instrumentality of a Government. Whatever function the Government discharges is in the nature of a public function but all activity manifested by the instrumentality of the State is not necessarily be a public function having a public law element in it or having a public law character in it. All actions of an instrumentality of the State is not necessarily amenable to the constitutional limitations. If the instrumentality of the State is a trading concern like a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and has to survive in the competitive field of business then all its activities cannot be termed to be in the discharge of a public function. It is only in matters where there is a statutory obligation or the discharge of a public function that such instrumentality becomes amenable to the Constitutional limitations. In domest