KUNJU MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1976, a Full Bench of this Court in Gopala Pillai v. S. S. I. Corporation 1978-11 L. L. J. 368 held that a "corporation which has been registered as a company under the Companies Act cannot be regarded as a Start? for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution". Is this decision still good law especially after the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject? This accounts for the constitution of a larger Bench to dispose of this writ petition.

(2.) TWO of us (Bhaskaran, Ag. C. J. k Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.) had occasion to consider this aspect in a recent decision in Sofhi. F. A. C. T. (1984 KLT 32) when the question was raised whether F. A. C. T. (Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.), a registered company, is a State amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Surveying the decisions of the Supreme Court beginning with Rajasthan Electricity board's case in 1967 and ending with Ajay Hasia'scase in 1981 and applying the principles stated therein, it was held that F. A. C. T. is a State, subject to the writ discipline of this Court.

(3.) ARTICLE 12 of the Constitution, defining "state" for the purposes of Part III reads thus: