( 1 ) INDIRA Gandhi National Centre for Arts (for short, REFERRED TO as IGNCA in the Deed of Declaration of the said body) floated tenders for supply and installation of "integrated Document Imaging and Management System for Scanning and Search through - put and retrieval thereof as images on any desired index". Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 herein submilted their respective bids for tender. The tender was awarded by IGNCA, respondent No. 2 herein, to respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1, a Pvt. Limited Company, through petitioner No. 2, its Managing Director, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the process of selection/acceptance of the bid of the 3rd respondent by respondent No. 2 and communication of its acceptance to Respondent No. 3, in relation to the said tender. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Culture, was impleaded as the first respondent on the plea that respondent No. 2 is a body constituted under the Department of Culture under the Ministry of Human Resources Development and is an instrumentality of the State.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, IGNCA, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it being not a State, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In support, reliance was placed on an earlier Bench decision of this Court in CWP No. 1831/92, decided on 23 October 1992 (J. S. Tanwar v. Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts and Anr) wherein the Court had upheld a similar objection raised by respondent No. 2. The petitioners herein countered the preliminary objection raised. Reliance by them was placed on another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kuldip Mehta v. Union of India, 1993 (25) DRJ 490. The Bench, hearing the instant case (D. P. Wadhwa and Dr. M. K. Sharma, JJ) finding an apparent conflict in the two judgments, in particular taking note of the fact that the judgment in CWP No. 1831/92 was rendered in the case of the 2nd respondent itself and while observing that the present case may be covered by the decision in Kuldip Mehta s case, thought it appropriate to refer the case for the opinion of a larger Bench. This is how the matter is now before us.

( 3 ) THE question referred is as follows:

"whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the second respondent in view of the averments made in the petition and even if it is held that second respondent is not a State?"

( 4 ) THE points for determination thus are:

1. Whether IGNCA, respondent No. 2, is an instrumentality or agency of the State? and

2. If not, is the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution still maintainable?

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties, who took us through a resolution dated 19 March 1987 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Arts), published in the Gazette of India, annexed to the Deed of Declaration, various Articles of the Deed of Declaration and the Annual accounts for some of the years.

( 6 ) THE definition of the word "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is an inclusive and not an exhaustive definiton. The Article states that unless the context otherwise requires, the "state" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and legislatures of each of the States, all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Thus, the Article gives an extended meaning to the words "the State" wherever they occur in Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, unless the context otherwise requires, the State will include not only the Executive and. the legislative organs of the Union and the States, but also local bodies as well as "other authorities" within the territory of India or under the control of the Go