JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:--This writ petition is filed by two students of the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Science of Sewagram, District Wardha ("Institute") run under the aegis of respondents No. 2, the Kasturba Health Society (Society). Dean of the Institute is respondent No. 1 and Local Managing Committee of the Institute is respondent No. 2. Are these respondent or any of them in the matter of admission of student to various study courses amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the principle point, that arises the petition. 2. Dr. Ajay Gambhir, petitioner No. 1 and Dr. (Mrs.) Mohini Goswami, petitioner No. 2 passed their M.B.B.S. examination from the institute. They completed their intership and so also he two house-jobs. First petitioner did house on in Paediatrics and the other in Medicine and second petitioner one in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and the other in Anaesthesiology. They entered into a Bond as per Annexure VI to the petition, under which they agreed to pay to the society a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on failure to serve the society after post graduation for a period of two years. These two students were intersected in admission to the Post-graduate course and had applied for that purpose. Petitioner No. 1 had given first preference to the subject Medicine, the second to Paediatrics and petitioner No. 2 to Gynaecology an Obstetrics. According to them, they were fully eligible, had nothing adverse against them and were entitled to admission on the basis of merit. They filed the complete application well in time i.e. before 21st January, 1985. On 22nd January, 1985, they saw a notice on the Notice Board indicating that unless they got themselves relieved from the bonds in favour of the society, they would not be considered. Interviews were fixed on 24th January. They were never offered any service by the society and hence there was no question of paying Rs. 25,000/- each to the Society. Suspecting lack of bona fides, they filed a writ petition No. 167 of against the Dean, the society and the Nagpur University. The petition was admitted on 29th January, 1985, Rule was made returnable on 31st January, when by consent of parties, the petition was taken up for hearing. 25,000/- each to the Society. Suspecting lack of bona fides, they filed a writ petition No. 167 of against the Dean, the society and the Nagpur University. The petition was admitted on 29th January, 1985, Rule was made returnable on 31st January, when by consent of parties, the petition was taken up for hearing. The Dean and the Society stated that the impugned notice dated 22nd January, 1985 is withdrawn and that the petitioners will be considered on merits. On this statement, the petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 31st January, 1985. Interviews were taken but the petitioner were not granted admission despite the undisputed position that they were having market higher than those who were selected for admission. Respondents No. 4 to 6 in this petition were competitors of petitioner No. 1 and respondents No. 7 to 9 were competitors of petitioner No. 2. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. Respondent No. 8 Dr. Miss Tiwari did not join and hence her name was deleted. The petitioners had field two applications one dated 26th February, 1985 and the other dated 27th February, 1985. By the first application, the petitioners sought permission to add local Managing committee of the Institute as a party respondent and to raise certain additional points. Second application was also for amendment. We allowed those applications. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and No. 2, took notice also on behalf of the Local Managing committee (L.M.C.) which is joined as respondent No. 12. 3. To the claim of higher merits of the petitioner and their eligibility, there is no defence worth considering. In fairness to Shri Manohar, it will also have to be observed that no attempt to justify the action of refusal of admission on merits was even made. The only defence to the petition was that it is not maintainable against respondent No. 1, 2 or 12 as none of them is either "State" within the meaning of Article 12 or its agency or instrumentality. 4. From the material placed on record such as statements on both, the Annual Reports and the Souvenir on "WHO Work Shop on Eppidemology, Control of Leprosy and Multidrug Campaign" published by the Society and the Institute, the following positions emerge: Father of the Nation-Mahatma Gandhi made village Sewagram as his place of abode. He started Kasturba Hospital there. 4. From the material placed on record such as statements on both, the Annual Reports and the Souvenir on "WHO Work Shop on Eppidemology, Control of Leprosy and Multidrug Campaign" published by the Society and the Institute, the following positions emerge: Father of the Nation-Mahatma Gandhi made village Sewagram as his place of abode. He started Kasturba Hospital there. To being with this hospital was run by his Ashram and then by Gandhi Smarak Nidhi. In 1964 was formed an automous body "Kasturba Health Society" to manage the Hospital. Dr. Sushila Nayar (respondent No. 10) was then the Union health Minister, she experienced great difficulty in posting qualified doctors in rural areas. Prime Minister Shri Shastri suggested to the Health Minister to start Medical College in rural areas so that young doctors trained in rural setting would better understand the health problems of rural areas and would be more willing to work in Villages. Dr. Sushil Nayar suggested that the first rural medical college in the country should have Kasturba Hospital at Sewagram as it base. The Planning Commission approved of this proposal and the National committee for Gandhi Centenary with President of India as it President and the Prime Minister as the Chairman of its Executive Committee gave blessing to the proposal. The then Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Shri Morarji Desai called a joint meeting of the Health and Finance Minister of the Government of India and the Government of Maharashtra and Dr. Sushila Nayar, the President of the Kasturba Health Society. It was decided therein that the expenditure of the project will be shared by the Government of India. Government of Maharashtra and Kusturba Health Society in the proportion of 50:25:25. In August 1969, the dream of these national leaders become reality the Institute started. Kasturba Hospital is 501 bedded, will equipped teaching hospital. The Institute is affiliated to the Nagpur University (respondent No. 3) as required under the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (N.U. Act). Separate Local Managing Committee of the Institute (respondent No. 12) was formed as required under section 43 of the N.U. Act. 5. The Institute initially spent amount for capital expenses to the tune of Rs. 30.5 lakhs which was shared by Central Government, State Government and the society in the proportion of 50:25:25. The recurring as well as non-recurring expenditure was also shared in the same ratio. 5. The Institute initially spent amount for capital expenses to the tune of Rs. 30.5 lakhs which was shared by Central Government, State Government and the society in the proportion of 50:25:25. The recurring as well as non-recurring expenditure was also shared in the same ratio. The overall expenses for the first pertaining to the establishment and the running of the Institute were to the extent of over Rs. one crore. The Central as well as the State Government have also spent out of United States aid grant of Rs. 200 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 165 lakhs by 31st March, 1975. The Indian Council of Medical Research-a wholly Government Institution-has also been giving funds for a large number of research projects being carried out by the Institute. The Government Council of the Institute consists of 10 individual, out of which, following five are representatives of the Government :- (a) Secretary, Ministry of Health Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (b) Deputy Secretary (IF), Ministry of Health Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (c) Secretary, Medical Education Drugs, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay. (d) Director of Medical Education Research, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay. (e) Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi. Its financial matters are under the control of the Standing Finance committee of six members, out of which following three are representative of the Government. (a) Deputy Secretary (IF), Ministry of Health Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (b) Deputy secretary (M), Ministry of health family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (c) Secretary, Ministry of Education Drugs, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay. Five remaining member of the governing Council and three remaining members of the Standing finance committee are representative of the Society, of which the President of Zilla Parishad, Wedha happens to be one. 6. The academic courses are conducted by the Institute in accordance with the Ordinances framed by the Executive council of the Nagpur University as required under the N.U. Act. Several matters such as appointment of staff, their termination etc. are also regulated by the N.U. Act. The study in various discipline is required by the Indian Medical Council a statutory body under the Indian Medical Council Act, (1958 I.M.C. Act). Any society desirous of forming an institution for impairing university education has to apply to the Nagpur University for affiliation. are also regulated by the N.U. Act. The study in various discipline is required by the Indian Medical Council a statutory body under the Indian Medical Council Act, (1958 I.M.C. Act). Any society desirous of forming an institution for impairing university education has to apply to the Nagpur University for affiliation. The procedure for affiliation is prescribed in Chapter VII of the N.U. Act. Before the N.U. Act came into force, the affiliation was governed by Chapter VI of the Nagpur University Act, 1963 which provided for constitution of Governing Council. Section 43(3)(b) of the N.U. Act provides for constitution of separate L.M.C. to be constituted by the Management with the Principal of the College as the Secretary. This Committee is different from the managing body of the Society and its formation is a condition precedent for the affiliation. Section 48 makes it obligatory to constitute a local managing committee as required under section 43(3)(b) within a period of six months from the commencement of the N.U. Act even of those colleges who were affiliated under the old Act. Local Managing Committee as per the report of the Society" shall be responsible for the academic activities of the college and ensure all round academic excellence within the framework of the Nagpur University and the Medical Council of India". Rules for admission are finalised by the Local Managing Committee. Rule provide for constitution of Selection Committee and for admission to various courses on the basis of merit alone. Both the Central and State Government have authority to nominates students to study course in the Institute and financial assistance is rendered by the Government in the form of fee concession for economically backward class students, Primary Teacher's children concession, Government of India Freeship to backward class students, Free concession to Children of service Personnel and several Government Scholarship. Four seats are reserved for nomination by the State Government at the under-graduate level with no reservation at postgraduate level. 7. We may at this stage notice the salient features of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Society which is duly registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Maximum limit of member is 21. The first member were to be nominated by the Chairman of the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, New Delhi. 7. We may at this stage notice the salient features of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Society which is duly registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Maximum limit of member is 21. The first member were to be nominated by the Chairman of the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, New Delhi. The Secretary of the Nidhi or a representative of the institution in succession of it is the ex officio member of the Society. Representatives from the Government of India, Government of Maharashtra and Zilla Parishad are other members but their number is not to exceed one-third of the total membership. Clause 15 deals with Holding Trustees in whom the property of the trust vests. The Chairman of the Society has a casting vote. Dr. Sushila Nayar is the life President. Secretary is to be elected from the non-official members. The Society has powers to remove the member other than the members representing the State and the Central Government for such removal prior permission either of the Central Government or State Government is not necessary. 8. It is against the above backdrop that the scope and ambit of Article 226 vis-a-vis the right of the students for admission for studies in the Institute is to examined. Article 226(1) reads thus: "226. Power of High Court to issue certain writs.---(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every high Court should have power, through the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any persons or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, order or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the Part III and for any other purpose". Language of the Article does not create any bar against issuance of directions, orders or writs against a person. Writs include writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them. They can be issued not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also "for any other purpose" and against any person or authority or Government. Were we to equal person only with authority there would be a surplus age which has always to be avoided under the known cannons of construction. They can be issued not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also "for any other purpose" and against any person or authority or Government. Were we to equal person only with authority there would be a surplus age which has always to be avoided under the known cannons of construction. In (Rohtas Industries Ltd. and another v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union and others)2, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 425, the following observation are of importance:- "The expansive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Article 226 is as wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so can affect any person-even a private individual and be available for any (other) purpose, even one for which another remedy may exist." But the power is neither unbriddled nor unlimited. It has restrictions and limitations. It is only in exceptional cases that power under Article 226 is to be exercised against a person or affecting a person. Before taking a review of that aspect, we will like to deals also with the submission that these respondent are "State" within the meaning of Article 12. That "State" will include also its agency or instrumentality admits of no debate now. What that concept is? 9. In (Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual and others)2, 1969 Supreme Court 1306 though writ was not issued against the company on the ground that it was for enforcement of contract, the following significant observations were made : "An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, Corporation or an inferior Tribunal requiring them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or Corporation to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or Corporation to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibility." In the context of modern State increasingly operating various non-regal, non-traditional but important public functions under sociological notion of the "State" was adopted and it is observed in (Sukhdev v. Bhagatram)3, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1331:- "Institutions engaged in matters of high public interest or performing public functions are by virtue of the nature of the functions performed Government agencies. Activities which are too fundamental to the society are by definition too important to be considered Government functions." In the case of (Ramana Shetty v. International Airport Authority)4, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 1628 in the above context and in the context of an autonomous body being agency or instrumentality of the State and therefore a "State" within the inclusive meaning of Article 12 it is observed :- "It is not the relationship of principal and against which is relevant and material but whether the Corporation is an instrumentality of the Government in the sense that a part of the governing power of the State is located in the Corporation and though the Corporation is acting on its own behalf and not on behalf of the Government, its action is really in the nature of State action........... . It will thus be seen that there are several factors which may have to be considered in determining whether a Corporation is an agency or instrumentality of Government. . It will thus be seen that there are several factors which may have to be considered in determining whether a Corporation is an agency or instrumentality of Government. We have referred to some of these factors and they may be summarised as under; whether there is any financial assistance given by the State, and if so, what is the magnitude of such assistance, whether there is any other form of assistance given by the State, and if so, whether it is of usual kind or it is extra-ordinary, whether there is any control of the management and policies of the Corporation by the State and what is the nature and extent of such control, whether the Corporation enjoys State conferred or State protected monopoly status and whether the functions carried out by the Corporation are public functions closely related to governmental functions...... This particularisation of relevant factors is however not exhaustive, and by its very nature it cannot be, because with increasing assumption of new tasks, growing complexities of management and administration and the necessity of continuing adjustment in relations between the Corporation and Government calling for flexibility, adaptability and innovating skills, it is not possible to make an exhaustive enumeration of the tests which would invariably and in all cases provide an unfalling answer to the question whether a Corporation is governmental instrumentality or agency. Moreover even amongst these factors which we have described, no one single factor will yield a satisfactory answer to the question and the Court will have to consider the cumulative effect of these various factors and arrive at its decision on the basis of "particularised inquiry into the facts and circumstances of each case." Some other decisions of the Supreme Court having bearing on the topic are (Som Prakash v. Union of India)5, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 212; (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi)6, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 487 and (B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute)7, 1983(4) S.C.C. 582 . The last authority mandates that Article 12 must receive a broad and liberal interpretation wherever constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights are at stake and that not the form but substance must be sought. 10. That Local Managing Committee of an affiliated college under the N.U. Act is a "State" is no more res integra. The last authority mandates that Article 12 must receive a broad and liberal interpretation wherever constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights are at stake and that not the form but substance must be sought. 10. That Local Managing Committee of an affiliated college under the N.U. Act is a "State" is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of (B.M. Vidhwans v. Nagpur University)8, S.C.A. No. 1753 of 1977 decided on 16/18th July, 1980 has held so. On somewhat similar lines is another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Shreekant Rajeshwarrao Kshirsagar v. G.S. College of Commerce, Wardha)9, 1978 Mh.L.J. Note No. 22. These two decisions are based inter alia on the case of (Prabhakar Jodh v. A.L. Pande)10, 1965(2) S.C.R. 713 a case under the University of Saugar Act, 1946, under which also constitution of a Governing Body of College is mandatory. Respondents placed heavy reliance on the cases of (Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others)11, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 888 but that was not a case of Managing Committee constituted under the relevant law viz. Agra University Act. The ratio in the case of (Commissioner, Lucknow Division and others v. Kumari Prem Lata Misra)12, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 334 will also have no application as it related to the basic section of a school which was not held to be a part of a recognised institution. We may at this stage notice that even a service contract from referred to in the Schedule A of the College Code under the N.U. Act has been held to be statutory by Full Bench of this Court in (Premlata v. G.S. Tompe College)13, 1981 Mh.L.J. 332. 11. Thus we see no difficulty whatsoever in holding that respondent No. 12 is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and appropriate writ can be issued against it. L.M.C. is responsible for framing the Rules relating to admission and maintaining academic excellence within the frameword of the University and the Medical Council. Dean is ex officio Secretary of the L.M.C. which in a sense is a statutory agent or instrumentality of the society for establishing and administering the institute. Writ must be effective and must reach all those on whom incidence ultimately falls. Dean is ex officio Secretary of the L.M.C. which in a sense is a statutory agent or instrumentality of the society for establishing and administering the institute. Writ must be effective and must reach all those on whom incidence ultimately falls. After all property is held by the society. Thus the writ can under the circumstances go even against the Dean and the society. 12. There are additional reasons why writ can go against the Dean as well as the society. No particular test is exhaustive or conclusive. How a body is created is no longer a deciding factor. It may be debatable that the Government has ultimate administrative or financial control over the society considering its constitution, though it cannot be disputed that the public trust is running this institute with the aid of public funds and huge Government aid (which is 75%) running into crores of rupees. There is no much control of the Government over the society as such but control on the institute is considerable. One of the important tests to be applied is a functional test. Imparting higher medical education is the function of the institute. This education is essentially concerned with national health. Articles 41 and 47 in Chapter IV deal with education and public health. They embody some of our national goals for fulfilling which public funds are being utilized by the Government. This education is regulated by several enactments with the sole object of achieving best standards. Those obtaining degree will be entitled to deal with human life at its crucial stage. Thus the institute in one sense is performing a statutory duty and is, therefore, also an instrumentality of State. 13. In any case it is performing a public duty or public function and is, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction even as a person. It cannot be forgotten that its origin is in the public work started by the Father of Nation. Several public men of high calibre and national and international repute are involved with it. Under all these circumstances, we are unable to see any private capacity in any of these respondents. Their capacity is essentially public which implies a duty to act fairly and justly. In our judgment, this is consideration of prime importance in relation to a relief contemplated under Article 226. Under all these circumstances, we are unable to see any private capacity in any of these respondents. Their capacity is essentially public which implies a duty to act fairly and justly. In our judgment, this is consideration of prime importance in relation to a relief contemplated under Article 226. This Court in the case of (Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. Nagpur)14, A.I.R. 1958 Bombay 498 had occasion to consider whether Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Limited could be issued a mandamus for performing its duty under the Electricity Act or under the licence. The answer was recorded in the affirmative by making the following observations : "In the Supreme Court case it is held that normally, writ of mandamus does not issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against a private individual. Such an order is made against a person directing him to do some particular thing, specified in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a public duty. The statutory duty, devolving upon a public utility concern is a public utility concern like the respondent is in the same position as a private party." In 73 Corpus Juris Secundum at page 998, it is observed : "As a general rule, a public utility has the duty to give the public reasonable and adequate service at reasonable rates and without delay. A public utility has the duty to supply a commodity or to furnish service to the public. This duty exists independently of statutes regulating the manner in which it shall do business or of contracts with municipalities or individuals, and is imposed because the utility is organised to do business affected a public interest and holds itself out to the public as being willing to serve all members thereof. Broadly speaking, the primary duty of a public utility is to give reasonable and adequate service at reasonable rates and without delay." In the case of (C.D. Sekkilar v. R. Krishnamoorthy)15, A.I.R. 1952 Madras 151 a writ of mandamus was issued against the Principal of a College managed by a Public Trust and affiliated and governed by the Rules of University. In the case of (S. Goverdhan v. Rani Laxmidevamma College of Arts, Commerce Science, Wanaparthy)16, A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 125. In the case of (S. Goverdhan v. Rani Laxmidevamma College of Arts, Commerce Science, Wanaparthy)16, A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 125. High Court issued a writ of mandamus against the Principal of Rani Laxmidevamma College of Arts, Commerce and Science run by a public trust on the ground that the Principal of this private College was performing a public duty. 14. The law in England form where we have borrowed the concept of various forms of writ is not different. In (R.. V. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board)17, 1967(2) All England Report 770, writ was issued even against a non-statutory Board as it was performing a pubic duty. In the case of (E.S. Evans v. Charles E. Newton)18, 382 U.S. 296 15 Lawyers Edition 373 writ of mandamus was issued in respect of a part though not owned by the State on the sole ground that it came within a public domain. 15. Our attention has just now been invited by Shri Bobde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners to a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case (Manmohansingh v. Commissioner)19, A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 384 which completely supports the line we are adopting. It is observed : "The matter can be viewed from a slightly different angle as well. After the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981(2) S.C.R. 79 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487 the aided a school receiving 95% of expenses by way of grant from the public exchequer and whose employees have received the statutory protection under the 1969 Act and who is subject to the regulations made by the Education Department of the Union Territory of Chandigarh as also the appointment of Headmaster to be valid must be approved by the Director of Public Instruction, would certainly be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court unfortunately, did not even refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia's case rendered on November 13, 1980 while disposing of the writ petition in 1983. In Ajay Hasia's case, Bhagwati, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench inter alia observed that 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. In Ajay Hasia's case, Bhagwati, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench inter alia observed that 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. Add to this 'the existence of deep and pervasive State control which may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. Substituting the words 'public trust' in place of the 'corporation' the reasons will mutatis mutandis apply to the school. Therefore, also the High Court was in error in holding that the third-respondent school was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It is contended that the above ratio cannot have application to the case at hand inter alia on the ground that this is not can aided school receiving 95% of the expenses by way of grant. It is difficult to see how such minor difference in the percentage of grant will change the principle adopted. 16. Thus respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 12 are all amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226. Petitioners were clearly entitled to admission. We however would not like to disturb respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and 9 for they cannot be held responsible for their wrongful preference. The course has commenced and we do hope and trust that there will not be any further delay in giving to these meritorious students what is legitimately due to them. 17. To conclude, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in the above terms. Respondent No. 1 is directed to grant registration to petitioner No. 1 in post-graduation course in M.D. Medicine or Paediatrics and to petitioner No. 2 in post-graduation course in M.D. Obsterics and Gynaecology for the current term, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts and without disturbing registration given to respondents No. 4 to 7 and 9. There shall be no order as to costs. -----