Markandeya Katju, C.J. .

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.10.2005 by which WP(C)17670/2005 has been dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition the learned single Judge has held that a writ petition is maintainable . against the Delhi University Teachers Association (for short "DUTA")

2. The writ petitioner, Mr. S.D. Siddiqui was one of the three unsuccessful candidates for the post of President of the DUTA in the elections held on 31.8.2005. He prayed for a writ of certiorari for calling for the records of the DUTA elections and for quashing of the election result in respect of the post of President. "

3. In our opinion, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the short ground that no writ petition lies against the DUTA as it is a private body and not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not performing any public functions.

4. As stated in para 3 of the writ petition the DUTA is an association of teachers working in the Delhi University as well as those working in the colleges affiliated to the Delhi University. There is no averment anywhere in the writ petition that the DUTA is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. There is also no averment that there is deep and pervasive control of the State in the functioning of the DUTA or that the DUTA is largely financed by the State.

5. No doubt, as is seen from the constitution of the DUTA (vide Annexure P-3 to the writ petition), DUTA is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. In our opinion, this does not ipso facto make it either a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or aninstrumentality of the State. A mere registration of a society under the Societies Registration Act does not make that society an instrumentality of the State, just as mere registration of a company under the Companies Act does not mean that the company automatically becomes a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India simply because it has been registered under a statute. Even private bodies may have to be registered under a statute, or are regulated by a statute, but that does not necessarily mean that they are 'State' under Article 12.

6. Article 226(1) of the Constitution states:

"Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any or them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose."

7. The language of Article 226 is no doubt very wide.. It states that a writ can be issued "to any person or authority" and "for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose." However, the aforesaid language in Article 226 cannot be interpreted and understood literally. We cannot apply the literal rule of interpretation while interpreting Article 226. If we take the language of Article 226 literally it will follow that a writ can even be issued to any private person or to settle even private disputes. If we interpret the word "for any other purpose" literally it will mean that a writ can be issued for any purpose whatsoever, e. g., for deciding private disputes, for grant of divorce, succession certificate etc. Similarly, if we interpret the words "to any person" literally it will mean that a writ can even be issued to private persons. However, this would not be the correct meaning in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court in which it was held that a writ will ordinarily lie only against the State or instrumentality of the State vide Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Counsel of Educational Research and Training (1991) 4 SCC 578, Te