JUDGMENT A. Chakrabarti, J. - The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the Order dated 02.02.1993 at Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the Petitioner's service was decided to be no longer required with effect from 02.02.1993 in view of the decision of the management to abolish the post of Shift In charge. 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition contending, inter alia, that the employer, Ganges Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., is a private-owned company having its Board of Directors to run day-to-day administration and that neither the Central Government nor the State Government has any share capital or any holding in the Respondent company and as such, the same is neither a 'State' nor an 'instrumentality of the State Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Parties contested the proceeding Counter-affidavit was filed by the Respondent to which the Petitioner filed his rejoinder-affidavit. The Respondents filed a supplementary counter-affidavit dealing with some allegations in the rejoinder affidavit and the Petitioner filed his supplementary rejoinder-affidavit. Parties also filed respective written arguments. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon various cases including the case of Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 . Much stress has been given on the judgment In the case of M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others, (1987) 1 ACC 157 , as therein also the case of a company dealing with chemical and fertilizers was being considered as to whether the same though Under the private management, is amenable to writ Jurisdiction. The other cases referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner were Narendra Pal Gahlot v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 1 UPLBEC 51 and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1607 . It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the earlier view about the meaning of the expression "other authorities" was broadened in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 wherein tests have been provided as relevant criteria for determining whether Corporation or any other body is an instrumentality or agency of the State. International Airport Authority of India and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 wherein tests have been provided as relevant criteria for determining whether Corporation or any other body is an instrumentality or agency of the State. It has been further contended that following the said principles in various cases Societies, Government companies and even private companies have been held to be an instrumentality of the State and as. Such amenable to writ jurisdiction. 4. Relying upon the case of M.C. Mehta (supra), learned Counsel contended that the Respondent employer being a company dealing with chemicals falls within the scope and ambit of Article 12. Reference was also made to the case of Sri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.Af.S. Trust (supra) in support of the arguments on behalf of the Petitioner that the scope of Article 22, so far as the expression "any authority", is much wider than the expression used in Article 12 and no matter by what means the duty is imposed, mandamus cannot be: denied if a positive obligation exists and if the body performs public duty. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents also referred to various case laws on the aforesaid points and contended that the case of the Respondent company, the employer, does not even satisfy the tests laid down by the Apex Court for determining whether the same is instiximentality or agency of the State. The cases referred to by the Respondents include the case of Chondroma Singh v. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Union, Lucknow (1991) 2 UPLBEC 898: Satyapal Singh Chauhan v. Chairman-cum-Chief Executive Officer 1984 UPLBEC 587 and Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training and other[OVERRULED], AIR 1992 SC 76 6. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, as also law referred to by the respective parties, I find that practically there Is no dispute as to the legal position as regards the status of the employer, Respondent. Difference appears to be on facts. 7. While considering the materials available on record relevant for the aforesaid purposes, I find that the writ petition is absolutely silent on the same. The counter-affidavit discloses that the Respondent company Is neither the holding of the Central Government nor the State Government in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, neither the State Government nor the Central Government has any share capital In the Respondent company. The counter-affidavit discloses that the Respondent company Is neither the holding of the Central Government nor the State Government in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, neither the State Government nor the Central Government has any share capital In the Respondent company. It has been further stated therein that the Respondent company is a private owned company having its Board of Directors to run day-to-day business. The rejoinder-affidavit while denying the said allegations states that "shares of the State In the company are more than fifty per cent". The Respondent denied the said allegation by filing a supplementary counter-affidavit stating that "it is reasserted that neither the State Government nor the Central Government has any share capital in the Respondent company. It is stated that U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Kanpur, has 7.79 per cent shares In the Respondent company at the present." 8. Thus, materials available on record show it conclusively that the Petitioner has failed to produce any material whatsoever to show that there exists facts as regards carrying on of the business and of administration/control of the Respondent company which satisfies the tests provided therefore in various cases Including the case of Ajay Hasia and R. D. Sheltie (supra). In the circumstances, I do not find that the Petitioner can lawfully contend that the Respondent employer is amenable to writ Jurisdiction In view of the law as relied upon by the Petitioner. The case of M. C. Mehta, strongly relied upon the Petitioner, apparently has not decided the question whether a private corporation like the employer in the said case would fall within the scope and ambit of Article 12. I do not agree to the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that by reason of granting interim order in the case of M. C. Mehta,, law has been decided there as to the said company particularly when while finally disposing of the matter their Lordships expressly said that the question has not been decided therein. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not shown as to whether there was any public duty Involved in the present case. In the circumstances, the law decided in the case of Anadl Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust (supra) also is not relevant. 10. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not shown as to whether there was any public duty Involved in the present case. In the circumstances, the law decided in the case of Anadl Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust (supra) also is not relevant. 10. No other point having been argued, I hold that there is no material Justifying holding that the Respondent company, the employer of the Petitioner, is amenable to writ Jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.