1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2826 OF 2001 Ashok Baburao Mali .....Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr.S.S.Pakale, for the petitioner. Mr.Raju Mane, A.G.P., for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Counsel, a/w Vinod Tayade i/by Piyush Shah, for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JUNE 15, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the respondent No.2 i.e. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Ltd., wherein the petitioner was appointed as a Labour Officer and was in-charge of entire administration. The services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of loss of confidence. 2. This petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by way of affidavit-in-reply. As per the affidavit-in-reply, respondent No.2 is not a State and other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that as per Clause 4 of the bye-laws, a co-operative sugar factory registered under the Societies Act, is eligible for membership of the 2nd respondent. About 165 factories are members of the 2nd respondent. 2 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that respondent No.2 is an autonomous body governed by its own rules and regulations and it is to be construed that the management and control of respondent No.2 is vested in the Board of Directors and the directors are not discharging the public duties. The financial powers and affairs of respondent No.2 are with the members of respondent No.2. There is no government control over the functioning of respondent No.2. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state as to under which provisions the respondent No.2 can be said to be a State or other instrumentality of the State. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be maintainable against the State or instrumentality of the State. The material on record does not indicate the instrumentality of the State or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. During the course of hearing, Mr.Pakale, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not point out as to how the Government has any role or effective control in the functioning of respondent No.2. 5. Considering the affidavit-in-reply, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to take appropriate proceedings challenging the 3 impugned order in this petition. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In view of what is stated above, the petition is rejected. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue involved in the petition as to whether the termination of the petitioner was rightful or not. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)