(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.587 OF 1999 Ramchandra Govind Dongre ..Petitioner Vs. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. G.R. Nadkarni, for the Petitioner Mr. P.M. Palshikar, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 10th November, 2008 DATED: 10th November, 2008 DATED: 10th November, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By order dated March 22, 1999 the petition was dismissed on the ground that the respondent No.1 was a private company. 2. The petitioner filed an Appeal to the Supreme Court which was numbered as Civil Appeal No.6854 of 1999. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that the respondent No.1 was instrumentality of the State and would be regarded as State within the meaning of expression under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court thereafter remanded the matter back to the High Court on the ground that the issue had not been answered. The Supreme Court noted that this aspect earlier had not been raised before this Court. (-2-) 3. The matter had thereafter come up on board on January 15, 2007.A learned Bench of this Court noted the adjournments taken and the matter was adjourned as a last opportunity.The matter has been placed on board today. The learned Counsel before us produced the order of the Supreme Court. He reiterates that the respondent No.1 is the instrumentality of the State and the petition as filed is maintainable. The only additional averment made in the petition in para.23 is as under:- "This Hon’ble High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as Respondent No.1 is instrumentality of the State and would be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution." 4, Apart from this averment there nothing in the pleadings to show any control by the State on the working of the respondent No.1 either direct or indirect or that it has pervasive control and or for that matter has any share holding in the respondent No.1. The only averment in para.3 was that the petitioner was collecting money from purchase of rifle, etc. In our opinion this averment would not bring the respondent No.1 within the meaning of State or instrumentality under Article 12 of the (-3-) Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, as filed would not be maintainable. If the petitioner has any other remedy at law the dismissal of this petition will not stand in his way. With the above observations petition dismissed.Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR (J.P. DEVADHAR (J.P. DEVADHAR J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)