JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Employees' Union filed this writ petition and submitted that Hindustan Salts Limited and Sambhar Salts Ltd. are Government Companies under Section 617 of the Companies Act. It was also submitted that both these Companies are governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association 100 per cent shares of the Company are held by the Government. As far as Sambhar Salts Ltd. is concerned, 60% shares are held by the Hindustan Salts Ltd., Government Company and 40% shares are held by the State of Rajasthan. 2. Hindustan Salts Ltd. is having its work where the salt is produced, namely, at Kharagoda in Gujarat. Mandi Himachal Pradesh and Sambhar in Rajasthan. It was also submitted that there is iodisation plant at Ram Nagar in U. P. There is no dispute on this point that these companies are governed by the Union and the State. It was also submitted that the Head Office of the Hindustan Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd. is at Jaipur. Some time in 1967 or in 1968, Central Government intended to shift the headquarter of the Corporate Office/Registered Office of Sambhar Salts Ltd. and Hindustan Salts Ltd. to Sambhar lake. It was submitted that the Board of Directors considered the matter and it was considered proper to continue the office at Jaipur and not to shift the same at Sambhar lake. It was also submitted that in the year 1977, because of the practical difficulties the proposal was not carried out, though, it was stated by the Govt, that it is desirable to have the administrative office near to the Sambhar lake as (?) possible. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the shifting of the administrative office to Sambhar lake town may give rise to other problems, like construction of new buildings and communication. It was also submitted that the construction of the new building will cost huge amount. It was also submitted that Shri R. R. Purohit, Chairman-cum-Managing Director informed Shri Bairwa, Member of Parliament in 1977 that it will not be in the interest of the Company to shift the office of the Managing Director of Sambhar Saits Ltd./Hindustan Salts Ltd. to Sambhar lake. It was also submitted that (?) the joint office of both the Companies, namely. It was also submitted that (?) the joint office of both the Companies, namely. Hindustan Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd. In fact Sambhar Salts Ltd. is the subsidiary Company of Hindustan Salts Ltd. as 60% shares are held by the Hindustan Salts Ltd. and remaining 40% shares are held by the State Government. It was also submitted that two units which are also the source of production ate located in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. It was submitted that the administrative Office of the Company should always be away from the manufacturing units. It was also submitted that the administrative expenses will increase on account of the frequent visits of the Officers of the Company for discussion with the Salt Commissioner, Labour Commissioner and Provident Fund Commissioner as well as to contact the Insurance Companies, Western Railway and Income-tax Department. It was also submitted that there are no buildings to accommodate the office as well as the staff at Sambhar lake. At present there are very few buildings and the staff cannot be accommodated unless the new buildings are constructed to house the office as well as to provide residential accommodation. It was also submitted that the assurance given by the local public of Simbhar lake that number of buildings will be vacated for the purpose of office as well as for the residential purpose is neither practicable nor desiderable. It was also submitted that Shri Gopal Pachiewal contested the elections in November 1989 and he was elected. It was also submitted that Shri Pachrewal had one of the slogans that he will request the Central Government to shift the Head Office of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd to Sambhar lake It was also submitted that on the persuasion of Shri Pachrewal the Ministry of Industry took a decision to shift the Corporate Office of both the Companies at Sambhar Lake as the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, letter No. 30(2)/90, dated 19.1.90 addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Company to transfer the Headquarter from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake and further directions were given to implement the same upto 30th April 1990. 3. In annexure-1 FOURTH SCHDULE. it was decided that the existing staff will be paid compensatory and other allowances as admissible for the Companies' employees posted at Sambhar lake. 3. In annexure-1 FOURTH SCHDULE. it was decided that the existing staff will be paid compensatory and other allowances as admissible for the Companies' employees posted at Sambhar lake. It was further decided that as a special case, till the suitable accommodation is made available to them H.R.A. and C.C.A. will be paid to the employees at the rate admissible at Jaipur. Definitely the rates admissible at Jaipur are higher than Sambhar lake. The Chairman cum-Managing Director addressed letter. Annex. 2, dated, 5.4.90 and requested Hon'ble the Industries Minister to reconsider the matter. In the said letter it was stated that the sudden decision to shift the Corporate Office by 30th April 1990 from Jaipur to Sambhar lake without examining the difficulties of the employees, particularly, giving no credence to the reasoning of the Union in favour of continuing the Corporate Office at Jaipur, is totally unreasonable. It was also submitted by the Managing Director that larger interest of the Company will be served if the Headquarter is not changed, it was also submitted that the Corporate Office is functioning at Jaipur for the last 30 years, i.e. from the very beginning of the formation of the Company. It was further submitted that there will be no saving or improvement in the productivity by shifting the corporate office at Sambhar. Government of India issued instructions to the Officers of the Company vide letter dated 12.4.90. It was specifically mentioned that the officers mentioned in the said letter will function immediately. Directions were also issued in see that necessary arrangement; of furniture, typewriter, stationery, room coolers etc. are made in time. On behalf of the Union of India, it was admitted that instructions were issued on 19th January 1990 also. It was specifically denied that the decision to change the office was taken at the initiative of Pacherwal. M.P. It was also submitted that the decision was taken after examining all the pros and cons. It was further submitted that to have the headquarter of the Administrative Office at the place of production will save the expenses. It was further submitted that the duplication can be avoided and on the spot number of decisions can be taken. 4. Mr. It was further submitted that to have the headquarter of the Administrative Office at the place of production will save the expenses. It was further submitted that the duplication can be avoided and on the spot number of decisions can be taken. 4. Mr. Agrawal, Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Company submitted before me some files and there is a suggestion to connect Sambhar Lake town with S.T.D. and it is likely to be materialised within a short space of time. It was also submitted that the Sambhar Lake and Jaipur are not at a long distance. There is a run of about one hour by Car. It was submitted that number of buses and trains ply in between Jaipur and Sambhar Lake. It was further submitted that both the Companies are Government Companies and are controlled by the Government. As such, the Public Enterprises Department is fully competent to issue instructions and orders to respondent No. 2 and 3 in respect of the management of the Company and in respect of the managing the affairs of the Company. It was also submitted that the Directors of both the Companies were not pressurised or forced to accept the suggestions made, but in fact, they were persuaded and their doubts were removed and the Board of Directors resolved in their meeting held on 27th March 1990 to shift the Headquarters from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. It was also submitted that in the matter of shifting the Headquarters/Head Office no special resolution of the Board is required. The Board of Directors consist of the Officers of the Government and they have taken the decision. It was submitted that the Government Company cannot be equated with the private Company. It was also submitted that the resolution passed by the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 27th March 1990 and in the extraordinary jurisdiction dated, 17th April 1990 and 21st April 1990 both the Companies have taken the unanimous decision by passing the resolution that the office should be shifted from Jaipur to Sambhar. It was also submitted that the shifting of the Corporate Office from Jaipur to Sambhar is a policy decision and has been given after careful consideration. 5. On behalf of the respondent Companies namely, M/s Hindustan Salts Ltd. and M/s Sambhar Salts Ltd. reply has been filed. It was also submitted that the shifting of the Corporate Office from Jaipur to Sambhar is a policy decision and has been given after careful consideration. 5. On behalf of the respondent Companies namely, M/s Hindustan Salts Ltd. and M/s Sambhar Salts Ltd. reply has been filed. It was admitted that the letter dated, 19th January referred to above, was received by the Company. It was also submitted that the shifting of the Headquarters of the Companies from Jaipur to Sambhir does not amount the change in the service conditions of the employees working at the Headquarter of both the Companies at Jaipur. Without prejudice to this contention to avoid the future problems, a notice dated, 4.4.90 under Section-9A was issued as a precautionary measure to avoid any irregularity in the matter and to inform the employees of the respondents to shift the Headquarter of both the Companies from Jaipur to Sambhar. It was also admitted that the representation was received and the same was considered and reply of the same has been seat to the petitioner vide Annexure-R/1. The President of the petitioner's Union was informed that the Government of India has decided to shift the Corporate Office of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd. from Jaipur to Sambhar. In view of the decision of the Government of India, the Company requested the employees to co-operate in shifting the Corporate Office from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. He has also produced Annx. R/2, the letter dated, 6.5.90 which was submitted by the petitioner as a representation to the Chairman. A decision was also taken that necessary steps should be taken under Article 79 of the Articles of Association. It was also submitted that there is a provision that an employee shill be liable to serve anywhere in India in the service of the Company. Subject to the provisions of sub-Rule-1, the Company shall have the right to transfer any employee of the Company from one job/Section/department/circle and or from one office/factory/establishment to another. Such transfer shall not involve a decrease in rate of pay of the employee or a change in his conditions of service. Subject to the provisions of sub-Rule-1, the Company shall have the right to transfer any employee of the Company from one job/Section/department/circle and or from one office/factory/establishment to another. Such transfer shall not involve a decrease in rate of pay of the employee or a change in his conditions of service. It was also submitted that in all the appointments orders issued to various officers there was a condition that the appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part of India including in any unit of Hindustan Salts Ltd. or Sambhar Salts Ltd. It was also submitted that the Union has taken steps for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Intervener, Shri Bharatiya Namak Karmachari Sangh Ltd. has submitted that in the interest of the workers as well as in the interest of the production, distribution and Management it is necessary that the Administrative Office/Corporate Office/Registered Office should be transferred from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. They have also produced some documents to show that the building has already been allotted to the respondent No. 2. The Chamber of Genuine Salt Distributors, Sambhar Lake, has also supported the case of the respondents and has pleaded that in the interest of the Industry, the transfer of the Headquarter from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake is necessary. They have also produced some documents in support o, the contention of the Union of India. Nagrik Vikas Samiti, Sambhar Lake has also taken the same view and have pleaded the case of the respondents. It was submitted that the Headquarter should be shifted from Jaipur to Sambhar. Bharatiya Namak Karmachri Sangh, Sambhar Lake has also submitted that it is in the interest of the Industry as well as the Labour that the Headquarter should be shifted from Jaipur to Sambhar. 7. Rejoinder has also been filed by the present petitioner to show that the submissions made by the respondents are not good enough and the office should not be transferred. 8. Mr. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Union, submitted that from the perusal of the letter dated 19th January 1990 it is clear that the decision of the Board of Directors dated 27-3-90 is not a voluntary decision, but it is the acceptance of the directions issued by the Ministry of Public Enterprises. 8. Mr. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Union, submitted that from the perusal of the letter dated 19th January 1990 it is clear that the decision of the Board of Directors dated 27-3-90 is not a voluntary decision, but it is the acceptance of the directions issued by the Ministry of Public Enterprises. He submitted that initially, the Directors including the Chairman were opposed to the proposed shifting of the Head-quarter from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. He submits that the It, Secretary told the Directors that the directions or suggestions issued by the Ministry cannot be discussed by the Directors and they will have to accept the same He has also invited my attention to Annex. 1 and submitted that from the order itself it is clear that the Board of Directors have only resolved to implement the decision of the Government and they considered it necessary to transfer the Headquarters of both the respondents from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. He also puts reliance on the letter dated 4th April 1990. This position is not in dispute. From the reply filed it seems that the Board of Directors have resolved on 27th March 1990 to implement the Government's decision The Board has also resolved that till the residential accommodation is made available at Sambhar, the Corporate Office employees may come from, Jaipur to Sambhar daily. The Board accorded approval for purchase of a light vehicle for this purpose. At present, it was decided not to retrench any person and the whole organisational structure will be considered after the shifting of the office from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. Thus, the Board has only accepted the decision of the Government. The Registrar of Companies has also been informed about the decision vide letter dated 17th May 1990. It is the shifting of the Registered Office from Jaipur to Sambhar which is in the same state, as such the information has been forwarded under section 173. The copy of the resolution has also been forwarded to Registrar of Companies. On behalf of the petitioner Union a prayer was made for the production of agenda papers and the resolution dated 27th March 1990 and minute books to show that there was a division of opinion and the decision has been taken by the Board under duress. The copy of the resolution has also been forwarded to Registrar of Companies. On behalf of the petitioner Union a prayer was made for the production of agenda papers and the resolution dated 27th March 1990 and minute books to show that there was a division of opinion and the decision has been taken by the Board under duress. They have also produced the photostat copy of the letter dated 19th January 1990 addressed to Col. Lall, Chairman cum-Managing Director. In this letter the Joint Secretary, Government of India intimated that the Ministry has decided to shift the Headquarters of both the respondent companies from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. 9. Mr. Singhvi has invited my attention to Article 121 of the Memorandum of Association of the respondent Company, Hindustan Salts Ltd. 11 the said memorandum it has been mentioned that notwithstanding anything contained in any of these rules, the President may from time to time, issue such directives or instructions which may be considered necessary in regard to finances conduct of business and affairs of the Company. Mr. Singhvi submits that the Ministry cannot exercise the powers vested in Article 121 of the Memorandum of Association. He submits that it is the President who can issue such directions Similar provisions are there also in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sambhar Salte Ltd. It is an admitted position that the directions have not been issued by the President. The file has not travelled upto the President and Hon'ble Minister has passed the order. 10. Mr. B.P. Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Mr. Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, have submitted that it is not necessary to send the file to His-Excellency the President as the matter is squarely covered by the Allocation of Business Rules and the Transaction of Business Rules as amended from time to time. Under the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961, Rule-2 provides that the business of the Government shall be transacted in the Ministries, Departments, Secretariat and the offices specified in the First Schedule of these Rules. Rule 4 further provides that the business of the Government of India allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat is and, shall always be deemed to have been allotted to the Prime Minister. Rule 4 further provides that the business of the Government of India allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat is and, shall always be deemed to have been allotted to the Prime Minister. Ministry of Industry is looking after the Public Enterprises and the Department of Public Enterprises is under the direct control of the Hon'ble Industry Minister. They have also produced the copy of the Schedule to show that Hindustan Salts Ltd. is controlled and managed by the Department of Public Enterprises. It was also submitted that under the Government of India, Transaction of Business Rules, 19M, Schedule-I deals with the Standing Committees of the Cabinet and their functions. Schedule-II deals with the cases which shall be brought before the Cabinet and Schedule-III deals with the cases which are submitted to the Prime Minister and the President. It was submitted that all other matters not covered under any of the three Schedules referred above, will be placed before the Hon'ble Minister or any Officer subordinate to him. It was submitted that under the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 and the Transaction of the Business Rules provide for allocation of business among various Ministries and Departments. Mr. Singhvi has also invited my attention to the provisions of Sections 173 of the Companies Act, which provides for explanatory statement to be annexed to notice. Private Limited Company. Public Limited Company and the Government Company stand on different footing. Under Section 617, Government Company means any Company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or by any State Government or Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments. There is no dispute on this point that both the respondent Companies are the Government Companies. Section 619 of the Act provides some special provisions which are applicable to the Government Companies. Reports of the Government Companies are submitted to the House of Parliament together with the Audit Report. Under Section 620, Central Government may by notification make provision for that certain provisions shall not apply to the Government Companies and some modifications and special exceptions can be made. 11. On behalf of the petitioner Union the case of Tamlin v. Hannaford (1949 (Vol. 2) All England Law Reports P. 327) was referred. Under Section 620, Central Government may by notification make provision for that certain provisions shall not apply to the Government Companies and some modifications and special exceptions can be made. 11. On behalf of the petitioner Union the case of Tamlin v. Hannaford (1949 (Vol. 2) All England Law Reports P. 327) was referred. In the said case it was held that the British Transport Commission is not a servant or agent of the Crown, and its property is as much subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts as the property of any other person. The bone of contention is that the Government Company is not the creation of the Parliament and stands on a different footing and it cannot be equated with a Corporate Body created under the Statute of the Parliament. Government Company is a public authority and falls within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution and can be treated as a State as its purpose is to promote the trade and business of the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to distinguish that it may be a State under Article 12. It was further submitted that neither the Government Company can be treated as a Department of the Government nor its powers fall within the powers of the Government. It was submitted that Railway is a Government Department and there is a Railway Minister. It was also submitted that the Life Insurance Corporation is a Corporate Body created under a Statute. It was further submitted that the Company registered under the Companies Act is neither the Department nor the Corporate Body created under the Statute. The property is held by the Company and it is a limited Company, so, the liability of the Company is limited and Government shall not be responsible if any heavy losses are incurred by the Company. He submits that the Allocation of Business Rules or Transaction of Business Rules cannot be invoked by the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Singhvi has also cited before me the case of Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1969 Cal. 95) and submitted that the employees of the respondent Companies do not hold civil posts under the Government of the Union. He has also invited my attention to para 19 of the judgment. Mr. Singhvi has also cited before me the case of Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1969 Cal. 95) and submitted that the employees of the respondent Companies do not hold civil posts under the Government of the Union. He has also invited my attention to para 19 of the judgment. It was submitted that the effect of the amendment in the article is not to convert the commercial function of the Government into the Governmental function. It will not be out of place here to mention that where a State Government carries on the business it cannot be treated as a governmental function to claim the immunity from the Union taxation without a declaration by the Parliament by law. Vice versa it is also true that if the Central Government carries on business it can never be treated as governmental function to claim the immunity from the State taxation, simply because, it is the property of the Union. In the case of (3) Moti Ram N.E. Frontier Railway (AIR 1964 S.C. Page 600), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that, even when a Government carries on the business departmentally as in the case of Railway it cannot be treated as a sovereign function for the purpose of suability. It will not be out of place here to mention that where a business is carried on through a juristic person, a statutory Corporation or a Company, in such cases, the employees are of the juristic person and not of the Government. 12. In the case of Ranjit Kumar (supra), their Lordships have held as under:- "Upon the latter fact, it has been argued that if the President's act, in this context, be contended to be an act of the President in his personal capacity, the letter should have been issued by the President's Secretary and not a Secretary to the Government of India and that since the latter course has been adopted the appointment must be held in law to be an appointment by the Government. Technically speaking. Technically speaking. Article 77(2) of the Constitution applies when the President's action is an 'executive action of the Government of India', and where the President exercises some function, not by virtue of any provision of the Constitution, but, in his personal capacity, under a private treaty, e.g. the Articles of Association of the Company, it would be desirable to get his acts authenticated by an officer of his personal establishment and not by an officer of a Ministry. When the President appoints a person in exercise of powers conferred by the Articles of Association of the Company, he does so as a limb of the Company and not by virtue of any powers under the Constitution and the person who is appointed does not become a servant of the Government instead of the Company by the mere fact that the letter is issued by the Ministry." 13. Mr. Singhvi has also cited before me the case of Ghaio Mall & Sons v. The State of Delhi & Other (1958 S.C.R. 1424). It was submitted that the submission of the tile to the Hon'ble Minister cannot be equated with the submission of tile to His Excellency the President. It was also submitted that the Hon'ble President does not act in the case of the Limited Government Company as a functionary of the Government, but, he exercises the powers under Article 121 of the Memorandum of Association. 14. On behalf of the respondents my attention was invited to Part-V, Article 53(1) of the Constitution. It provides that the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through the Officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. There may be a controversy that the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the Hon'ble Minister may be the public servant but, may not be the officers subordinate. In the case of State of U.P. v. Babu Ram ( AIR 1961 SC 751 ) their Lordships have considered that certain powers which are vested by the Constitution in the President, apart from the executive powers of the Union cannot be delegated by the President to any other person or authority either under Article 53(1). In the case of State of U.P. v. Babu Ram ( AIR 1961 SC 751 ) their Lordships have considered that certain powers which are vested by the Constitution in the President, apart from the executive powers of the Union cannot be delegated by the President to any other person or authority either under Article 53(1). However, this view has been over ruled by he larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another (1974) 2 S.C.C 831 ). Their Lordships held that the President must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers in exercise of his functions under Art 74 without specifying any exceptions. Thus, after the case of Shamsher Singh (supra), all executive functions can be delegated by the President to any Officer subordinate to him. Learned Advocate General has also referred to Article 73 of the Constitution. Executive functions are not confined to the execution of the laws made by the Legislature or the Parliament already in existence. Ours is a welfare State and Preample of the Constitution is very relevant for that purpose. For this very reason Article 298 of the Constitution has been substituted by the Constitution 7th Amendment Act, 1956. It provides that the Executive Power of the Union in each State shall extend to the carrying on any trade or business and acquisition, hiring, disposal of the property and making of contracts for any purpose. This amendment has come to make it very clear that the Union or the State Government is competent to carry on commercial or industrial undertaking whether or not it is related to a matter within the legislative competence of the Union or the State. 15. Trade or business may be carried on by the Union or the State by any of the modes, which is considered just and proper in the interest of the nation. One of the mode is to carry on the business of trade departmentally. The other mode is to create a Corporate Body under the Statute just like LIC. The third mode may be to have a Government Company registered under the Companies Act. 16. I will like again to deal with the Memorandum and Articles of Association. One of the mode is to carry on the business of trade departmentally. The other mode is to create a Corporate Body under the Statute just like LIC. The third mode may be to have a Government Company registered under the Companies Act. 16. I will like again to deal with the Memorandum and Articles of Association. Article 6(a) provided that the Company shall act as agents for Governments or authorities or for any manufacturers, merchants and others and to carry on agency business of every kind of any description connected with the business of the Company. Thus, from the Articles of Association it is clear that the Company is an agent of the Government. The agent has to follow the guidelines given by the principal Thus, it is implicit in Article 6(a) that the guidelines given by the Principal should ordinarily be followed by the agent, namely, the Company. Under Article 121 of the Memorandum of Association there is a clear provision that the President may from time to time, issue such directives or instructions which may be considered necessary in regard to the affairs of the Company. President does not act in his personal capacity, but he acts as a President of the country or the Executive Head of the nation. In the instant case, President is the share holder and some of the Officers of the Union are also the shareholders and all of them are not in their personal capacity, but, in the capacity of the executive functionary of the Union. I will like to make it clear that the autonomy of the Company is limited in cases of Government Companies and for this very purpose Article-6 of the Memorandum of Association, provides that the Company shall act as an agent of the Government. It further authorises the President to issue any directions which may be necessary in the interest of Government and sometimes in the interest of the development. There has been a large expansion in urban population in duding Jaipur. Absolute magnitude for the growth of the urban population is so large that a close new look at the existing policies concerned with the housing and urban development is warranted. In view of the extremely serious situation in which the urban bodies find themselves, a vigorous multipronged attack is needed to reverse the conditions and to restore health growth. Absolute magnitude for the growth of the urban population is so large that a close new look at the existing policies concerned with the housing and urban development is warranted. In view of the extremely serious situation in which the urban bodies find themselves, a vigorous multipronged attack is needed to reverse the conditions and to restore health growth. For that purpose, it is necessary that there should be a planned and integrated development of small and medium towns and cities alongwith slowing down the growth of big cities like Jaipur. There may be need for revitalisation of civic bodies and to provide them constitutional recognisation just like Legislature and Parliament. To achieve this object even at the cost of some difficulties to some urbanised officers and white collar persons, if the departments of the Government headquarters and the Companies Headquarters are shifted to the nearby places, it will be a part of the policy of the State. Thought in the instant case, this may not be the part of the policy as nothing has been said about it, but, one cannot forget consequence of having administrative office at the source of production is still better as it may result in effective control, economic growth and reduction in expenditure. It is true that generally the people who have lived in the cities do not want to move out of the cities as they do not want to lose the urban culture or a metropolitan culture. In the instant case, the very fact that the two Directors initially disagreed and two agreed goes to show that the matter was considered at length. Apart from that when there is an equal division in the Directors as is said by the petitioners, then naturally the will of the Govt, must prevail. In the instant case, after due deliberations, the original stand taken by the two Directors has been changed by them and they have accepted the decision of the Government and they have resolved in favour of shifting the Headquarter from Jaipur to Sambhar lake. 17. We are hiving a written Constitution having to a great extent a federal character and to a great extent the principle of separation of power. The case of Tammlin (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Even in our country the rent control exemptions are not available to the Government Companies. 17. We are hiving a written Constitution having to a great extent a federal character and to a great extent the principle of separation of power. The case of Tammlin (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Even in our country the rent control exemptions are not available to the Government Companies. In our system one Government cannot be equated with the definition of the State given in Article 12 of the Constitution. Any instrumentality or agency or any institution which is controlled wholly or mainly by the Government may fall within the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, though, it may not be a part of the Government. We are not here to extend benefit to the Government, like Rent Control Act, but we are here concerned with the powers of the Government while dealing with the legal juristic person to the Government Company which can be treated as State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Functions and powers are co-related. Wherever, there is an executive function there must be executive powers. Without the power the function cannot be carried and without function the power is redundant. Power and function co-exist. Article 298 of the Constitution which confers powers on the Govt, to carry on trade or business is a supplementary provision of Article 73. Government can carry on trade or business and the powers have been given to the Government. Thus, to carry on trade or business is a voluntary function of the Government and can be carried out by the Government under the powers given to it under Article 298 of the Constitution. Merely, because the tax is to be paid to the Union it cannot be said that it is not a function of the Government. If the Government treats the trade or business as a part of the department then the department does not have a separate legal entity, but, when the trade or business is carried on by the Government Company or a Corporate Body then it creates a juristic person while performing the functions of the Government and the juristic person acts as an agent. For the health-growth of the Government trade and business it is necessary that the legal juristic entity should be created so that the Government may not loose the tax or the revenue and at the same time, there may be a feeling of competitive growth. Thus, I am of the view that Government Company or the Corporate body is an instrumentality or an agent of the State or the Union and, particularly, in the light o' the Art 6 of Memorandum of Association there cannot be any doubt that the Company acts as an agent of the Union or the authorities. Thus, the function of the Company is carried and His Excellency the President of India can delegate this power under Allocation of Business of Rules and Transaction of Business Rules, 1961. It is not necessary that His Excellency the President of India should be over burdened with such petty matters of day to day affairs of the Company, particularly the public enterprise. Decentralisation of powers may lead to the growth of the institution and also the proper control over the institution. I have gone through the Schedule and it is not the case which should be submitted to His Excellency the President and under the Allocation of Business Rules and Transaction of Business Rules, the powers can be exercised by the Hon'ble Minister. Hon'ble Minister was within his competence to issue the directions to shift the headquarter from Jaipur to Sambhar Lake. Apart from that after the resolution of the Board of Directors, may be by way of acceptance of the decision of the Government, no arguments can be allowed to be raised that the Board of Directors have not taken any decision. 18. In the result, I do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******