1. In 1976, a Full Bench of this Court in Gopala Pillai v. S.S.I. Corporation (1978 KLT. 347(F. B.) ) held that a "Corporation which has been registered as a company under the Companies Act cannot be regarded as a State for the purpose of Art.12 of the Constitution". Is this decision still good law especially after the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject? This accounts for the constitution of a larger Bench to dispose of this writ petition.

2. Two of us (Bhaskaran, Ag. C. J. & Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.) had occasion to consider this aspect in a recent decision in Sofhi v. F. A.C.T. 0984 KLT. 32) when the question was raised whether F. A. C. T. (Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.), a registered company, is a State amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Surveying the decisions of the Supreme Court beginning with Rajasthan Electricity Board's case in 1967 and ending with Ajay Hasia's case in 1981 and applying the principles stated therein, it was held that F.A.C.T. is a State, subject to the writ discipline of this Court;

3. Art.12 of the Constitution, defining "State" for the purposes of Part III reads thus:

"In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "The State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."

4. And in Smt. Ujjam v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR. 1962 SC. 1621) it was observed thus:

"Again. Art.12 winds up the list of authorities falling within the definition by referring to "other authorities" within the territory of India which cannot obviously be read as ejusdem generis with either the Government and the Legislatures or local authorities. The words are of wide amplitude and capable of comprehending every authority created? under a statute and functioning within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. There is no characterisation of the nature of the "authority" in this residuary clause and consequently it must 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."

5. Subsequently in a series of decisions, the Supreme Court had to consider the scope of the expression "State" occurring in Art.12 and it is noteworthy that there has been a steady expansion of the content of the expression "other authorities"' in Art.12 by a gradual process of judicial reasoning extending over a decade. Initially the concept of "other authority" was confined to constitutional or statutory authorities. Eventually it has been held that it is irrelevant whether the Corporation/ Company is created by or under a statute and the true test is whether it is an instrumentality of the State or agency of the Government. "The enquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person was born but why it has been brought into existence. The corporation may be a statutory corporation created by statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or of other similar statute." The relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority's case were summarised as follows in the Ajay Hasia's case:-

"(1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government."

(2) "Whether the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the Corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character."

(3) "It may also be a relevant factor whether the corporation enjoys monopoly s