By the Court—A learned Judge of this Court has referred the following two questions for decision by a Larger Bench :

“(1) Whether IFFCO can be said to be an “instrumentality” of the State?

(2) Whether IFFCO discharges “Public Functions” because of which it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?"

2. The need to refer these two questions arose because the learned Judge felt that the decision of this Court given on 17.12.1991 in W.P. No. 6143 of 1984 (Shyam Lal v. IFFCO & Ors.), and another decision of this Court given on 26.11.1996 in W.P. No. 34064 of 1996, (IFFCO Employees Union & Ors. v Executive Director & Anr.), on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IFFCO”) in support of his contention that the said body was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court required reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 741 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagveer Singh v. Chairman, Co-operative Textile Mills Ltd. Shahkari Nagar, Bulandshahr & Ors., (1999) 2 UPLBEC1521.

3. Article 226 of the Constitution provides that every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Part III of the Constitution deals with the fundamental rights and Article 12 which defines “The State” is contained in Part III of the Constitution. The significance of Article 12 of the Constitution has been emphasised by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of seven Hon’ble Judges in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111 in the following words :

“But before considering the decisions it must be emphasized that the significance of Article 12 lies in the fact that it occurs in Part III of the Constitution which deals with fundamental rights. The various Articles in Part III have placed responsibilities and obligations on the “State" vis-a-vis the individual to ensure constitutional protection of the individual’s rights against the State, including the right to equality under Article 14 and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16 and most importantly, the right to enforce all or any of these fundamental rights against the “State” as defined in Article 12 either under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts by issuance of writs or directions or orders.” (emphasis supplied)

4. As seen above, Article 226 of the Constitution confers powers on the High Courts to issue to ‘any person’ or ‘authority’ writs for enforcement of ‘the fundamental rights’ as well as ‘for any other purpose’. The power to issue writs of the nature expressly mentioned “to any person” can only mean the power to issue such writ to any person to whom, according to well established principles the writ lay and the words ‘for any other purpose’ must mean a purpose other than enforcement of fundamental rights for which any of the writs would, according to established principles issue i.e. for enforcement of some other legal right and the performance of some legal duty.

5. The word “State” has been defined in Article 12 to include 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.

6. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar explained the scope of Article 12 and the reaso