N. K. MITRA, C. J. , S. R. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) PRESENT special appeal has Its genesis in the writ petition which was instituted by the appellant for the relief of quashing the order dated 12. 2. 1999 whereby the appellant was suspended from service in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. The counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection before the learned single Judge that the writ petition was not maintainable firstly, on the ground that the Co-operative Textile Mills, Sahkari Nagar, Bulandshahr being a co-operative Society was neither state nor "instrumentality of State within the gamut of Article 12 of the Constitution and hence it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court and secondly, on the premises that the respondent-Co-operative Society was not discharging any statutory duty while passing the impugned order of suspension. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents received countenance of the learned single Judge and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order impugned herein however, studded with the observation that the order dismissing the writ petition would not operate as an impediment in the way of the petitioner in making representation before the appropriate authority in terms of bye-law No. 25 of the U. P. State Textile Co-operation (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bye-laws, 1978.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri R. C. Shukla for the appellant and Sri Vinod Misra for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE first question that surfaces for consideration is whether the respondent-society comes within the purview of state within the meaning of the term used in Article 12 of the constitution quoted hereinbelow :

"12. Definition.--in this part, unless the context otherwise required, "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 ) THE inclusive language in which the word state has been defined in Article 12 would evince that the definition is not exhaustive. The expression "other authorities" also leads to the same conclusion. The expression "other authorities" In, our view, embraces within its sweep and ambit, every public authority exercising statutory powers ; every authority created by or under statute ; and even a non-statutory authority exercising public functions. The main principle evolved is that of "instrumentality or agency" of Government-a concept wider than a "department of Government". In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 481 wherein regional Engineering College-a Registered Society was held to be "state", following tests were formulated for determining whether an entity is an "instrumentality or agency" of State :

" (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) Where 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 government character.

(3) it may also be a relevant factor whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status, which is state conferred or State protected.

(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.

(5) If the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as a instrumentality or agency of Government. " in order to qualify Itself to become an "instrumentality or agency" of State, it is not essential for a juristic entity or body to satisfy all the tests aforestated and in a given case, one or a combination of more than one of them may suffice. Let us examine if the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document