( 33 ) ON a consideration of the various observations of the Supreme Court which we have set out above, we are inclined to agree with the contention of Shri Nariman. It is true that in Ujjam Bai's case while Kapur, Subbarao, Hidayatulla and Mudholkar, JJ. observed that "state" would include a department of the State or other authorities which exercise governmental functions or are instrumentalities of the State,. Rajagopala Iyengar J. observed that the words "other authorities" are of wide implitude and capable of comprehending every authority created under a statute and functioning within the territory of India. But, it has to be noted that immediately after the said observation, the learned Judge observed that the words include every type of authority set up under a statute "for the purpose of administering laws enacted by the Parliament or by the State including those vested with the duty to make decisions in order to implement those laws". Reading the observations together, it is clear that, according to the learned Judge, in order to be "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12, it is not enough if a body or authority is set up under a statute, but it has also to be one which administers laws enacted by the Parliament or by the State or one vested with the duty to make decisions in order to implement the said laws.

( 34 ) IT is also true that in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board's case, Bhargava J. observed that the expression "other authorities" is wide enough to include within it "every authority created by a statute and functioning within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India". But, just before making that observation, reference was made to the dictionary meaning of the word "authority" and it was observed that the said word is wide enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions. Then, after referring to the observation of Rajagopala Ayyangar J. in Ujjam Bai's case, and the passage in K. . Ramamurthy Reddiar's case in which the words "even autonomous authorities which may not be under the control of the Government at all occured, the learned Judge observed that "other authorities" in Article 12 will include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law", and that it is not material if some of the powers conferred may be for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities, or for the purpose of promoting the educational and economic interests of the people. After making the said observations, the learned Judge pointed out that the Electricity Supply Act conferred powers on the Board "to give directions, the disobedience of which is punishable as a criminal offence, and concluded that the Board was an "authority" to which the provisions in Part III of the Constitution were applicable. Can it be said from the said observations that it was intended to lay down thereby that all statutory bodies or authorities are ipso facto "other authorities" and hence "states" whithin the meaning of Article 12 ? In other words, was it the ratio of the decisions mentioned above that the fact that a body or authority is constituted or set up under a statute is sufficient to constitute it an "authority" and hence "state" within the meaning of Article 12. On a consideration of the various observations referred to above, we are of the opinion that a body or authority cannot, by the mere fact that it has been constituted or set up by a statute, be regarded as an "authority" and hence " State" within the meaning of Article 12. To be such an "authority", it should have functions and powers such as are mentioned or indicated in the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court. Broadly stated, the said observations indicate that a body or authority constituted or set up by or under the Constitution or a statute within the territory of India or under the control of the Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document