VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. U P RAJYA KARMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole point that arises for decision in this appeal before us is whether U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam [for short 'the Corporation'] is covered by the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE services of the petitioner from the post of Salesman in one of the stores of the Corporation have been terminated against which he approached the High Court of Allahabad. A preliminary objection was raised by the Corporation to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that the Corporation does not fall in the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

(3.) WE may also refer to the minority view expressed by learned Brother Lahoti J. in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) because the examination of nature of difference in opinion between majority and minority view, for the purpose of present case, may be of some relevance. In the minority view, different tests are required to be applied in each particular case. The claim of a body as included within the definition of "State" based on it being a statutory body falling in the expression 'other authorities' is to be considered differently from claim of a body based on the principles propounded in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra), that it is an 'instrumentality or agency' of the State. In the opinion of minority, the tests laid down in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) are relevant only for the purpose of determining whether an entity is 'an instrumentality or an agency of the State'. The minority view is expressed thus :-