A corporation, company or society can be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India if it is an instrumentality or agency of the State, and the test for determining whether a corporation, company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the State is whether the State Government exercises deep and pervasive control over the functioning of the corporation, company or society.

1. By this common judgment, we shall dispose of the limited question relating to the interpretation and appliability of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in so far as it relates to respondent The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., viz, as to whether it is "State" or "other authority" as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of the Hon™ble Chief Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Acting Chief Justice (as his lordship then was) and Hon™ble Mr. Justice M.L. Bhat (as he then was) in LJPA (Writ) No. 34/1984 Jagdish Chander Gupta Vs. J&K Bank & Ors. held that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (Bank for short) is not an agency or instrumentality of the State Govt. and would not be therefore, termed as "an authority" for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is this judgement of Division Bench which is sought to be reconsidered by this Full Bench, as in evident from a perusal of the order dated 2.11.1992 passed by a Full Bench of this court, to which a reference was made by the Hon™ble Chief Justice on 20.5.1992. The order reads as under: -

"Mr. Jalil Andrabi

The petitioner in this writ petition has basically challenged his supercession on non-consideration by the respondent. The petition came up before the learned Single Judge, Hon™ble Justice Parray. His lordships after hearing has made a reference to Division Bench for consideration of the matter vide his order dated 6.5.1992. Lord Chief Jusice vide order dated 20.10.1992 has referred the matter for consideration of admission to the Full Bench of this court and the case has come for admission before the Full Bench.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken us through several judgments in support of his contention whether the respondent-Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as argued requires reconsideration of a decision of a Division Bench of this court in LPA (W) No. 34/84 titled Jagdish Chander Gupta Vs. J&K Bank delivered on 19.12.1984. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is required in reference to the respondent Jammu and Kashmir Bank and also consideration of the earlier Division Bench judgment indicated above, we feel that this is a fit case which should be set for hearing. The petition is admitted to hearing. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. Matter be listed after the service is complete.

Issue notice in the CMP No. 6344/92 to the respondents returnable within the same period to show cause why the interim relief should not be granted. The respondents however, are at liberty to consider the petitioner for promotion to the higher post.

Sd/-

Hon™ble Judges."

3. Even though the order dated 2.11.1992 suggests that the writ petition be heard by a Full Bench, including the question relating to the interpretation of Article 12, we are clearly of the view that we are required only to answer the limited question as to whether the Bank is an instrumentality or agency of the State and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court and then remit the writ petition, after answering this question, for hearing by a regular Single Bench. In other words, if, on re-consideration of the judgment in Jagdish Chander Gupta™s case, we find that the Bank is an instrumentality or agency of the State, naturally the petition has to go back to the Single Judge for regular hearing, but if we agree with the ratio in Jagdish Chander Gupta™s case, consequence of course would be dismissal of the petition by us on this limited question alone.

4. To examine as to whether the Bank is an instrumental