MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal are discussed below. The Appellant herein, Mr. N. K. Aggarwal joined the service of the Respondent No. 2 Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited (hereinafter KRIBHCO ). The Appellant was appointed in 1985 on the post of Traffic Assistant, and was consequently promoted in 1988 to Senior Traffic Assistant and in 1993 to Junior manager (Marketing ).

( 2 ) THE Appellant during his ten years of service did not avail of any long leave except on medical grounds on two occasions; from 12. 2. 1994 to 28. 3. 1994 and from 30. 8. 1995 to 15. 9. 1995.

( 3 ) THE Appellant was also granted Special Medical Sanction on 29. 09. 1995 for a period of three months for treatment at Moolchand Hospital, New Delhi. On 13. 11. 1995 the Appellant telephonically communicated to the Management about his suffering from viral fever combined with hypertension. Appellant was advised bed rest from 18. 11. 1995 to 1. 12. 1995 and telephonically informed Sh. B. B. Singh, consultant and Sh. Shankar Vishwas, Jr. Manager (Marketing) of his sickness.

( 4 ) IN January 1996, the Appellant had filed the writ petition c. W. P. No. 189/1996 challenging his termination order dated 28. 11. 1995 wherein his services were terminated by invoking clause No. 31. 11. 1 of the Service Rules for employees of Respondent No. 2 on the ground of alleged voluntary abandonment of service. The appellant submitted that no enquiry was held before terminating his services.

( 5 ) THE Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 contended that it was not a 'state' under the meaning of Article 12 and thus no writ petition was maintainable against it. The Appellant filed his Rejoinder Affidavit contending that the Respondent No. 2 is a 'state'. The Appellant relied upon the Bye laws and Articles of the Respondent in that regard. The Appellant filed an application placing on record that he had sanctioned medical leave to his credit at the time his services were terminated and a detailed Supplementary Affidavit was filed giving examples of documents released to the public and press releases to establish that KRIBHCO treated itself also as 'state'. These facts were not disputed by the Respondents.

( 6 ) ON 9. 1. 2002, a learned single judge in a judgment dated 9th January, 2002 in R. K. Mishra vs. KRIBHCO, CWP No. 3035/99 and other connected petitions held that KRIBHCO was not a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The said judgment was followed in the impugned judgment dated 15. 2. 2002 given by learned single judge dated 15/2/2002, while dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable against KRIBHCO in limine leading to the present appeal.

( 7 ) THE only question that arises in the present appeal is whether Krishak bharti Cooperative Limited (hereinafter KRIBHCO) is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226'

( 8 ) THE parent judgment rendered in R. K. Mishra and Others v. Krishak bharti Cooperative Ltd. (CWP No. 3035/99) was followed by the judgment given by s. K. Kaul, J (dt. 15/2/2002 ). The judgment dated 15/2/2002 is the impugned judgment in this case.

( 9 ) MR. Asim Mehrotra, counsel for the Appellant argued that KRIBHCO may be considered to be 'state' under Article 12 and that it has been treating itself as such as well. He also submitted that irrespective of whether KRIBHCO is 'state' or not under Article 12, in view of the nature of public functions performed by KRIBHCO, a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable.

( 10 ) HE submitted that according to documents placed on record, KRIBHCO is under the administrative control of the Department of Fertilizers under the government of India. It is also clear that KRIBHCO is treating itself as a government enterprise. This is evident from the following extracts of the publications by KRIBHCO. a) KRIBHCO in its 'diary 2000' has mentioned that it is 'under the administrative control of the Department of Fer