BHOLA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants' prayer seeking directions to the respondent Company not to act upon his offer of voluntary retirement was declined by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable since the respondent was purely a Private Ltd. Company. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) DURING the pendency of appeal the appellant has filed an application for taking additional document on record. The respondent Company submitted reply to the application.

(3.) SEVEN Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002 (5) SCC 111), after discussing the various case laws laid down the following parameters for gauging whether a particular body could be termed as State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution- Principles laid down in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must ex hypthesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. (i) The question in each case will have to be considered on the basis of facts available as to whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally, administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. (ii) Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. (iii) Mere regulatory control whether under statute or otherwise would not serve to make a body a State.