JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) SHRI H. N. Upadhyaya, counsel for the petitioners. ( 2. ) SHRI R. A. Roman, Dy. Government-Advocate, for the State. ( 3. ) HEARD counsel. ( 4. ) IN a revision an order was passed on 14-10-1985 with respect to three issues framed in the suit by the trial Court. That order is being challenged on the writ side in this matter. ( 5. ) WE have perused the impugned order and are satisfied that there can be no grievance as respect one of the issues. That issue related to the objection of non-rejoinder of necessary parties and the view taken by the Revisional Court that the authority in question namely, M. P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam, Gwalior, was itself a necessary party and had to be impleaded in this suit and that the Managing director and other functionaries concerned, though impleaded were not sufficient for the purpose of proper representation. With that we fully agree. Indeed, Shri upadhyaya concedes that the plaint shall be amended accordingly, as directed. ( 6. ) IN so far as the question of maintainability of the suit is concerned, with respect of which two issues were framed namely, issues Nos. 7 and 8, the revisional Courts decision is challenged before us. The view expressed in respect of the two issues, evidently was based on a decision of this Court rendered in 1985 mpwn260 (Page 320), Distt. Manager vs. Nemisagar Saxena. ( 7. ) HOWEVER, the situation has changed and an important fact is brought on record by way of averments made in ground No. 1 of the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India The decision aforesaid of this Court which was relied on in the impugned order by the Court below was challenged before their Lordships of Supreme Court on the question of maintainability of that suit. Their Lordships took the view that the suit had to be tried and disposed of "without being influenced by any of the observations made by the high Court while vacating the temporary injunction granted. " ( 8. ) ADMITTEDLY, the same question of maintainability was raised therein on the same basis as in this case. The only difference is that the defendant in that case was Food Corporation of India and in this case it is the Madhya Pradesh Rajya bhumi Vikas Nigam. " ( 8. ) ADMITTEDLY, the same question of maintainability was raised therein on the same basis as in this case. The only difference is that the defendant in that case was Food Corporation of India and in this case it is the Madhya Pradesh Rajya bhumi Vikas Nigam. Indeed, in both the cases there is a common factor. For disposal of the legal issue, if the defendant can be regarded as "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? Although counsel has also relied on other decisions, we merely list the same as we are not required to deal therewith except stating that our attention is revetted at the relevant portion of the operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagat ram, AIR 1975 SC1331 which we extract : " 195. Rules and Regulations of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation have the force of law. 1%. The employees of these statutory bodies have a statutory status and they are entitled to a declaration of being in employment when their dismissal or removal is in contravention of statutory provisions. 197. These statutory bodies are authorities within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution. " Other decisions are as follows : 1. Sirsi Municipality vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973sc855. 2. Ajai Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Shehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 . 3. A. L. Kalravs. P and E Corporation of India Ltd. , AIR 1984 SC 1365. 4. Workmen of the Food Corporation of India vs. Food Corporation of india, (1985) 2 SCC 136 . ( 9. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that a part of the order of the revisional Court, which impugned before us, is without jurisdiction. Indeed, that part of the order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The decision of the Revisional Court with respect to maintainability of the suit cannot be upheld. We direct the trial Court to proceed with the suit after impleading M. P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigan as party-defendant and to try and dispose of the suit as framed, on the merits. ( 10. ) PETITION allowed, but without costs. Petition allowed.