IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6815 of 2006 Date of Decision : 10.12.2010 Ex (GDR) No.2681858 X Gdr Jagbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Meenakshi Choudhary, Advocate for Mr.Ram Chander, Sr.Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.J.S.Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure P-3) and to further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the disability benefits from the Army Group Insurance Fund under the AGI Scheme. The petitioner has based his claim against respondent No.4 and has also impleaded the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence and Chief Controller of Defence Accounts C.W.P.No.6815 of 2006 -2- (Pension) amongst other array of respondents. The main grouse is against respondent No.4 and the order issued by it. The reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 reveals that it is the Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and a specific plea has been taken that the writ is not maintainable against the Society which is not performing any public functions. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the objection which has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 merits acceptance. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Alav Rasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1987 SC 487 summarised as under : “(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 status which is the State conferred or State protected.” (4) ”Existence of “ deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency C.W.P.No.6815 of 2006 -3- or instrumentality.” (5) “If the functions of the corporation 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 Govt. 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.” A Division Bench of this Court in Balwan Singh Madad v. Union of India and others (2006-2) P.L.R 494, while relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court as also relying upon the judgments in Tekrai v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 469, Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (2005)4 SCC 649 and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)5 SCC 111, observed that a society which is not the agency or instrumentality of a State does not fall within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to invite interference in writ jurisdiction. There is thus no reason to grant the prayer which has been made in the instant writ petition while exercising powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail any other remedy available to him under law. 10.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss