HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition no. 1463 (S/S) 2005 Uma Shankar S/o Late Bhullan Singh, R/o village Kishanpur Jamalpur, P.O. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. -----Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal Dehradun, 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haldwani, Uttaranchal, Nainital. 3. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haridwar, Uttaranchal, 4. R.K. Verma, Chairman, G.E.M.E.S. Vetan Bhogi Rin Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Roorkee, Haridwar. -----Respondents. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Vinay Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Navneet Kaushik learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who accepts notices for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Vinay Upadhyay, Adv. who put in appearance for respondent no.4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was Secretary of G.E.M.E.S. Vetan Bhogi Rin Sahakari Samiti Ltd, Roordee, Haridwar for the past 14 years. No complaint was made against him by any member or any office bearer of the Board. It has been further contended that the respondent no. 4 at his residence called a meeting on 7.9.2005 which was not circulated to any member or to the petitioner and proposal for removal of the petitioner was taken on frivolous charges 2 without conducting any inquiry or serving any show cause notice to the petitioner. On 15.09.2005, the respondent no. 4 removed the petitioner from the post of Secretary. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the establishment of the respondent no. 4 is an autonomous body and respondent no. 4 who has passed the impugned order is neither the Govt. undertaking nor under the State agency. The short question which arose to be determined in the writ petition is whether the G.E.M.E.S. Vetan Bhogi Rin Sahkari Samati Ltd. Roorkee, Haridwar i.e. the respondent no. 4 is either State or an instrumentality or an agency of the State with the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? The Apex Court in (2003)8 SCC page 639 General Manager vs. Satrughan Nishad & ors. has observed as follows:- “For coming within the purview of Article 12 the form in which the body is constituted, namely, whether it is a society or a cooperative society or a company is not decisive. The real status of the body with respect to the control of Government would have to be looked into. The various tests laid down in Ajay Hasia, (1981) 1 SCC 722 would have to be applied and considered cumulatively. There can be no hard-and-fast formula and in different facts/situations, different factors may be found to be overwhelming and indicating that the body is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. In this context, bye-laws of the Mill would have to be seen.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case further observed as follows:- “6. The point raised is no linger res integra as the same is concluded by decisions of this Court. In the case of Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, a Constitution Bench of this Court, while approving the tests laid down in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India as to when a corporation can be 3 said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government, observed at pp. 736/37 which runes thus: (SCC parar-9): 9. The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may now be called out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority case. These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression ‘other authorities’, it must be realized that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Authority case as follows: (1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (3) It may also be a relevant factor…whether the corporation enjoys monopoly statu s which is State conferred or State protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) ‘Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference’ of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government. If on a consideration f these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority case, by an ‘authority’ and, therefore, ‘State’ within the meaning of the expression in Article 12”. 4 Hence, keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the abovementioned case and after having perused the entire documents available on record, I am of the firm view that the respondent no.4 who has passed the order and with which the petitioner is engaged, is not a State body nor an instrumentality nor an agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) October 7, 2005: NCM: