JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed' by the petitioner challenging an order of transfer dated April 3, 1990 contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A preliminary objection is raised by learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that respondents are not authorities, instrumentality or agency of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, they are not amendable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The petitioner has in his writ petition stated that respondent no. 1 is a non-statutory corporation and is fully Governed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. On this plea the petitioner has filed this writ petition and he is of the opinion that the respondents are amendable to the writ petition of this Court, as according to him, respondents are agency or instrumentality of the State. There is nothing in the writ petition to show as to why respondents can be termed as agency or instrumentality of the State nor it is spelled out as to what are the attributes of the respondents so as to include them within the 'list of authorities, agency or instrumentality for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. Eleven percent share is held by U. P. Government. Rest of' the share-capital of the Company is held by the private companies and public at large through shares. 3. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the stage of arguments has drawn my attention towards the Brochure of the respondents' company as also the clauses made thereunder which show that the company is a largest assisted sector of Furtilizer Plant in private sector and is incorporated as the public limited company. He is of the opinion that this would make the respondents amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Before the Company is held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it must satisfied various tests. Those tests are laid down by the Supreme Court in Inter national Airport Authority of India, 1979 S. C. 1628 in Ajay Hasia v: Khalid Mujibsehravardi A. I. R. 1981 SC. 487, and the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath,1986 (53) F. L. R. 523. Those tests are laid down by the Supreme Court in Inter national Airport Authority of India, 1979 S. C. 1628 in Ajay Hasia v: Khalid Mujibsehravardi A. I. R. 1981 SC. 487, and the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath,1986 (53) F. L. R. 523. No doubt the Supreme Court lifted the corporate veil and held certain; companies or societies amenable to writ jurisdiction, which has certain attributes of the agency of the State. The attributes which would bring the Company within the meaning of agency or instrumentality for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution are enumerated as under according to the guide-Tir. es laid down by the Supreme Court : 1. If the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way awards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State. 2. The financial assistance of State is patent that the company would largely depend such ass stance, this will also go a long way to show that the company is the agency of the state. 3. Company, if having a monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected will also make it agency of the State. 4. Company has over it pervasive State control that would indicate that it is instrumentality of the State. 5. If the company in discharging functions which are closely related to the State functions, it would become an agency of the state. 6. If the company or corporation is carved out from the State department and discharges the functions of the State as its arm then it may also have trapping of agency or instrumentality of the State. None of these atributes are attached to the respondents company nor it is shown that the respondents company has trapping of the aforesaid attributes which would bring the company within the meaning of the authority of the State. On its own showing the petitioner has revealed that the company is in the private sector and the Government has only 11% share capital in the Company. Even Government companies which do not fulfill the aforesaid attributes would not become an authority, agency or instrumentality of the State. On its own showing the petitioner has revealed that the company is in the private sector and the Government has only 11% share capital in the Company. Even Government companies which do not fulfill the aforesaid attributes would not become an authority, agency or instrumentality of the State. The petitioner's case is that it is a non-statutory corporation, therefore, it is all the more necessary for the petitioner to say in the writ petition as to what are the attributes of the respondents which would make it agency or instrumentality of the State. Most of the share capital of the Company is held by the Birla Group of company, as reflected by the pleadings of the parties. It is a commercial company it cannot be termed as a agency or instrumentality of the State. 5. The pleas raised in the counter-affidavit of the respondents are not replied or denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit. Merely State Government's officers are holding some posts of the company, (they may be on deputation) would not make the company an agency or instrumentality of the State. 6. The respondents will not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court because they don't fall within the purview of any authority, agency or instrumentality of the State. The writ petition will lie only against the authority under Article 12 of the Constitution or against any agency or instrumenality of the State which has the aforesaid attributes. The respondents does not fulfill any of the attributes. Therefore, it is not State or authority under the State nor it is agency or instrumentality for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel' for the respondents has force and must prevail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The interim order, if any, is vacated. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours on payment of usual charges. Petition Dismissed.