J. M. Srivastava, J - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner assails the orders dated 3rd June, 1985 (Annexure 12) and dated 2nd July, 1985 (Annexure 11) whereby the petitioner's contract service with the North Eastern Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organ­isation Ltd. (NEITCO), hereinafter referred as the company was terminated. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner on 15.10.1981 joined the company as Casual Works Attendant. The petitioner was selected for the post of Field Assistant and offered appointment by letter dated 26.7.1984 (Annexure 2). The petitioner accepted the offer by communication dated 3.8.1984 (Annexure 3) and the appointment letter dated 9.8.1984 effective from 3.8.1984 was issued. The petitioner was posted to Wazeho, Nagaland. By order dated 22.4.1985 the petitioner was asked to report to Head Office at Guwahati. By communication dated 3.6.1985 the petitioner was released from Wazeho and to report Head Office at Guwahati. The petitioner did not report at Head office at Guwahati. The petitioner was asked to show cause against certain allegations by communication dated 25.4.1985 (Annexure 6). The petitioner by communication dated 21st May, 1985 (Annexure 7) in which various allegations about the conduct of the petitioner had been made and was further asked to show cause why his service in the company should not be terminated. The petitioner submitted reply (Annexure 8). The Managing Director of the company by communication dated 18.6.1985 (Annexure 9) after considering the petitioner's explanation held that he had provisionally come to the conclusion in pursuance to the clause XVII of the letter of appointment that the petitioner's contract service should be terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's basic pay in lieu thereof. The petitioner submitted a reply copy at Annexure 10. By order dated 2nd July, 1985 (Annexure 11) impugned in this petition. The petitioner's service was terminated. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. The respondent Managing Director of the company resisted the petition and in the counter affidavit filed, has stated that the petitioner's contract service was terminated in pursuance to clause XVII of the letter of appointment and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. 5. We have heard Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Dr. 5. We have heard Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the company was an instrumentality of the State and consequently State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and action taken against the petitioner violated the petitioner's right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Dr. Singh has fairly conceded that the petitioner not being a Government servant could not invoke the pro­visions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Shri DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the company was not an instrumentality of the State and could not be considered `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the question of infringement of petitioner's right to equality did not arise. 7. The first question is that whether the company was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 8. The North Eastern Industrial and Technical and Consultancy Organi­sation Ltd. as revealed from its Memorandum and Articles of Association was constituted as a company and its shareholders were the representatives of various public sector organisations like Industrial Development Bank of India, Industrial Financial Corporation of India, Assam Industrial Develop­ment Corporation Ltd. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nagaland Industrial Development Corporation, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd., United Commercial Bank and United Bank of India. 9. The objects for which the company was established are :- to identify industrial potential through surveys or otherwise, to prepare the project profiles, feasibility reports and pre-investment studies in respect of specific industries; to identify project potential enterpreneurs for implementation of projects and provide technical and administrative assistance to them for promotion and management of industries; to undertake techno-economic apprisal of projects on behalf of any person to undertake market research and surveys for specific products to act generally as an industrial, management and financial consultant and similar activities which undoubtedly do not pertain to any State activity. 10. On careful consideration of the objects of the company it should be clear that it was constituted not for advancement of any State activities, but to provide consultancy for industrial and financial development in the region. 10. On careful consideration of the objects of the company it should be clear that it was constituted not for advancement of any State activities, but to provide consultancy for industrial and financial development in the region. Considering the objects for which the company was constituted, the mere fact that the shareholders were representatives of public sector organisations, in our opinion, does not make the company an instrumentality of the State. There is nothing in the Articles of Association of the company which may suggest that the `State' controlled or directed the activities of the company. 11. In Tekraj Vasandhi vs. Union of India (1988) 2 SCR 260 the Supreme Court has held that the Institutute of Constitutional and Parliamen­tary Studies was not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Institute was a registered society financed mostly by the Central Government and partly by gifts and donation. Its first President was the then Speaker of the Lok Sabba and out of the five Vice-Presidents three were Central Ministers. The Court taking into consideration the relevant facts and the objects of the society held that the Institute was not `State'. The Court observed' "In a Welfare State Govenment control is very pervasive and touches all aspects of social existence. A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion" and held that the Institute was not State. 12. In Sabhjit Tewari vs. Union of India & others, 1975 (1) SCC 485 it was held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research which was sponsored and controlled by the Central Government and registered under the Societies Registration Act was not `State' within the meaning of Article 12. 13. In CM Khanna vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training & others (NCERT), 1991 IV SLVR the Supreme Court has held that the National Council of Educational Research and Training was not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 14. 13. In CM Khanna vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training & others (NCERT), 1991 IV SLVR the Supreme Court has held that the National Council of Educational Research and Training was not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the ratio of the above decisions, considering the objects for which the company was formed and the fact that the management of the company is not controlled or directed as such by the Government, we are inclined to think that the respondent company should not be considered `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and hold accordingly. 15. In view of our above conclusion the question of infringement of any right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not arise. 16. Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contract service of the petitioner was terminated on certain allegations of misconduct and hence there should have been proper inquiry before the impugned action could be taken. Dr. Singh has submitted that the Staff Rules of the company do not provide for any inquiry as such. However, he has submitted that principles of natural justice do arise in the present case and considering the nature of the allegations the fact that no inquiry was held amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned action was vitiated. 17. On careful consideration of the materials on record, we are unable to accept the submission on behalf of the petitioner. The letter of appointment of the petitioner (Annexure 2) shows that the petitioner's appointment was on contract basis for a period of three years and its clause XVII shows that the appointment could be terminated by one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. The petitioner was required to report to the head office at Guwahati. Admittedly the petitioner had not complied with the order. The respondent had required the petitioner to explain the allegation made against him. The petitioner had furnished explanation which had been duly considered by the respondent whereafter the impugned order of termina­tion of the petitioner's contract service was made. The petitioner was required to report to the head office at Guwahati. Admittedly the petitioner had not complied with the order. The respondent had required the petitioner to explain the allegation made against him. The petitioner had furnished explanation which had been duly considered by the respondent whereafter the impugned order of termina­tion of the petitioner's contract service was made. In the circumstances, we are unable to take the view that any principle of natural justice had been violated in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the reason that the petitioner was required to furnish explanation in regard to certain allegations which he had done and which had been duly considered by the respondent. It could therefore not be said that the petitioner was not given any opportu­nity of being heard before the impugned action was taken. What principles of natural justice arise in a particular case depends upon the facts and circu­mstances of each case and in the present case we think that the petitioner having been given opportunity to make his submission, which he had, no further principles of natural justice arose and consequently the further submission on that score is not tenable. We have already said that the petiti­oner admittedly had not complied with the order to report Head Office at Guwahati which in itself was sufficient for the action which was taken against the petitioner. 18. The petitioner had held contract service with the clear term that the appointment was terminable with one months' notice or one months' pay in lieu thereof and the respondent had invoked the aforesaid term of the petitioner's appointment. There was no error or illegality in the action taken. 19. Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited PL Kalra vs. Projects and Equiptment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1364. The authority is not applicable on the facts of the present case in view of our conclusion that the respondent is not `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and also that in the facts and circumstances of the case no principles of natural justice had been violated. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.