VEENA HARISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a lady working as Accounts Officer in the employ of the 2nd respondent ie., the Bangalore Turf Club Limited, a company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 vide Registration No.1446/1962 has crisply stated her grievance in the SYNOPSIS to the Writ Petition, as under:

(2.) The State of Karnataka being the 1st respondent entered appearance through the Addl. Government Advocate Prof. Indiresh, who raised the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the 2nd respondent-Turf Club is not an instrumentality or an agency of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, going by the interpretation placed thereon by the Apex Court in a long line of decisions, otherwise arguable merits of petitioner's case notwithstanding. He banked upon the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pesi Shroff vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1993 AIR(Bom) 384.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate Shri H.S.Jois taking the Court through various paragraphs of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the 2nd respondent-Turf Club vehemently submits that the 1st respondent-State exercises a pervasive control over the affairs of management of the Turf Club and therefore it answers the description of 'other authorities' as explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. Although the learned Senior Advocate referred to several decisions of the Apex Court, I have refrained from reproducing the discussions therein, inasmuch as they are more or less a reiteration of what is well settled position of law.