IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10494 OF 2009 Between: Kantamaneni Dharaneesh ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Commissioner, Family Welfare, DM & HS Campus, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10504 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 3rd respondent-Emergency Management and Research Institute terminating the employment of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the outset raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the Emergency Management and Research Institute (for short EMRI) is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions the learned counsel has relied upon a decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others[1]. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the other material available on record. In (1 supra) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while overruling the earlier decision rendered by a Bench of two Judges in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India[2] held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), although a registered Society is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution Bench further held as under: “The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258 are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be – whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.” The material on record shows that the EMRI is a non-Government and a non-profit Organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is providing free emergency response services and the Government of A.P. entered into public private partnership (PPP Agreement) to provide Ambulances for extending the emergency services in the State. Pursuant to the said agreements EMRI is provided autonomy. It is also clear that the Government of A.P., except providing financial support to EMRI for extending emergency services in the State, does not have any overwhelming control over the working of the system. Thus, it is clear that EMRI is neither a State nor an Agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy, as available under law, before the appropriate forum. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.11.2009 Ivd [1] (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 111 [2] AIR 1975 SC 1329