R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) ON 24-6-1991, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the question whether the Karnataka Dairy Development corporation Ltd. , is 'authority' under Article 12. The learned counsel appearing tor the Appellant and Respondents submitted that the Karnataka dairy Development Corporation Limited (First Respondent) was a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and the assets and liabilities of the said Company have been taken over by Karnataka Co-operative milk Producers' Federation Limited (Second Respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as the 'federation) and that while making the reference, due to a typographical error, the reference has been made in regard to Karnataka dairy Development Corporation Ltd , instead of Karnataka Cooperative milk Producers' Federation Ltd The use of the words 'a Co-operative ture', by the Division Bench, while describing the entity in regard to which reference is made, makes it evident that reference relates to the Federation which is registered under the Karnataki Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). Hence by consent the question referred as follows :"whether the Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation ltd. is 'state' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. " ( 2 ) THE appellant was an employee of the Federation and his services were terminated by an order of dismissal dated 16-3-1987. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissa in W. P. No 10273 of 1987 on assumption that the Second respondent is 'state' as defined under Article 12. Doddakale Gowda, J. who heard the matter, dismissed the writ petition. by order, dated 31-7-1989 on the ground that the Federation is not 'state', relying on his earlier decision in Sri Arunodava. Agencies v. The Karnataka co-operutive Milk Producers' Federation W. P No 12074 of 1989, DD : 20-7-1989. In the said decision, he held that the Milk Producers' Unions which were the Members of the Federation were not 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 and a Federation of such Milk Producers unions cannot have a higher status than its members and therefore, the federation, cannot beheld to be'state'. He also held that none of the criteria laid down to determine whether an authority is a 'state', were satisfied in regard to the Federation. He also held that none of the criteria laid down to determine whether an authority is a 'state', were satisfied in regard to the Federation. The said dismissal of the W. P No. 10273 of 1987, was challenged by the Appellant on the ground that the federation was a 'state' and that question has been referred to a Full Bench. ( 3 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to refer to the circumstances leading to the incorporation of the Federation Earlier, a company known as karnataka Dairy Development Corporation Ltd , was incorporated to be in-charge of dairy Development of Karnataka. The State Government was keen on implementing 'operation Flood-II' Dairy Development Programme in karnataka. The Indin Dairy Corporation/national Dairy Development Board (hereinafter referred to as IDC) which had been nominated by the Central government as the Project Authority for the operation Flood-ll Programme that suggested the State Government should adopt the'anand Pattern' cooperatives as the basic policy for future dairy development programmes in Karnataka. The Central Government also requested the State Government to examine the said suggestion and enter into an agreement with IDC for implementation of operation Flood-II. IDC suggested the creation of the post of a spscial Secretary by State Government to coordinate the operation Flood-ll activities and creation of a Milk Producers Co-operative Federation. The Central Government also emphasised that implementing of World bank aided dairy development project through the Karnataka Dairy development Corporation, it was visualised that in course of time, the said corporation would get re-placed by a Cooperative Federation which would own the various processsing and marketing facilities. By letter dated 13-5-1981, the State Government agreed to create a co-operative Milk producers' Federation to Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation. Thereafter the State Government entered into an agreement dated 5 6-1982 with IDC for implementation of Operation Flood-II programme in Karnataka. In this background, the Government passed an order dated 6-11-1982. The order inter alia provided :"1. The time-span for the implementation of Operation Flood-II in karnataka State shall be 7 years commencing from the date of release of funds from the Indian Dairy Corporation. 2. The Indian Dairy Corporation would fund the programme on the basis of 30% grant and 70% loan, the repayment of loan would be commencing after 5 years. The rate of interest would be 8. 5%, the loan being repayable in 15 equal annual instalments. 3. 2. The Indian Dairy Corporation would fund the programme on the basis of 30% grant and 70% loan, the repayment of loan would be commencing after 5 years. The rate of interest would be 8. 5%, the loan being repayable in 15 equal annual instalments. 3. The Government stands guarantee to the repayment of the loan component of the financial assistance to be provided by the indian Dairy Corporation to the Karnataka Cooperative Milk producers' Federation Ltd , under Operation Flood-ll together with interest. The Managing Director of the Karnataka co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. , should submit the draft loan agreement in consultation with the Indian dairy Corporation, after legal scrutiny, for taking necessary action. 4. The organisational pattern for the development of dairy industry in Karnataka shall be based on the 'anand Pattern' Producers' societies at the village level, a Union of Producers' Societies at tbe district level and a Federation of District Unions at the State level. 5. Government direct that it shall, inter alia be the responsibilty of the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Limited to (i) establish and promote the producers' Societies at village level and the District Unions at the district level; (ii) assist in the promotion and establishment of new dairy plants, feed mixing plants etc. for and on behalf of the said Unions; (iii) Procure and market milk and milk products outside the jurisdiction of Unions and in major cities. 6. In keeping with the above said agreement, the Government of of Karnataka have decided to set up the Karnataka Co-operative milk Producers' Federation Limited, at tbe State Level with head. quarters at Bangalore, in place of the existing Karnataka dairy Development Corporation Ltd. , to perform such duties as are deemed necessary in connection with the functioning of the District Unions and the Producers' Societies at the village level Orders regarding approved bye-laws of Federation/union /primary Societies will be issued separately. The Registrar of cooperative Societies shall take immediate necessary action to assist the Managing Director, Karnataka Dairy Development corporation, in the registration of the said Federation. 7. The formalities of the establishment of the Federation, the unions and tbe Societies, such as drafting bye-laws etc,should be completed within a period of one month in order that founding can be obtained without delay from tbe Indian Dairy Corporation. 8. 7. The formalities of the establishment of the Federation, the unions and tbe Societies, such as drafting bye-laws etc,should be completed within a period of one month in order that founding can be obtained without delay from tbe Indian Dairy Corporation. 8. Initially, for a period of three years, the Karnataka Co-operative milk Producers' Federation Ltd , shall function under a nominated Board of Directors. Orders in this regard will be issued separately. 9. All functions now discharged by the Karnataka Dairy Development corporation Ltd, Banglore, shall become the responsibility of the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd , once it comes into being. 10. The Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. , shall be responsible for marketing of milk and milk products of member Unions and distribution of milk in major cities and outside tbe jurisdiction of the Unions. 11. The assets and liabilities of the Karnataka Dairy Development corporation Ltd , Bangalore shall stand transferred to the karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation, Bangalore the terms of the said transfer will be decided separately. 12. A separate committee shall be set up for laying down the principles of valution of assets and liabilities and for their assessment referred to in paragraph 11 supra. The said committee shall consist of the following members : 1. The Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Agriculture and animal Husbandry Department; 2. The Secretary to Government of Karnataka Finance department; 3. The Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Rural Development and Corporation Department; 4. A Representative of the Indian Dairy Corporation; 5. The Managing Director, Karnataka Dairy Development corporation Limited, Bangalore; 6. The Managing Director, Karnataka Cooperative Milk producers' Federation Limited Bangalore. Member Secretary however the transfer of assets and liabilities shall be upon the terms mutually agreed to between the Indian Dairy Corporation, the Karnatakat ooperative Milk Producers' Federation Limited, and the State Government, and satisfactory to the international Dcvelopmet Agency. 13. The Managing Director, Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation, bangalore, shall initiate necessary action towards screening and absorption of the employees now working in karnataka Dairy Development Corporation, in the Karnataka co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Limited. All matters arising out of the Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation's staff shall be settled by a committee consisting of a nominee of the State Government, a nominee of the Indian Dairy Corporation/national dairy Development Board and the Managing director, Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation/federation. All matters arising out of the Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation's staff shall be settled by a committee consisting of a nominee of the State Government, a nominee of the Indian Dairy Corporation/national dairy Development Board and the Managing director, Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation/federation. The directions of the committee shall be binding on the Karnataka dairy Development Corporation, Federation and the Unions. 14. In any dispute relating to the valuation and transfer of assets and liabilities and/or the allocation of staff, the decision of the Government shall be final. 15. The Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation shall be wound up as per the provisions of Company Law after finallsation of the accounts. The Federation will maintain a distinct account till such time as the letter 'karnataka Dairy Development corporation' is wound up. 16. The Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. , once formed, should take expeditious action to set up cooperative unions in the assigned districts and activate them on the desired lines with the least administrative or financial dislocation. " ( 4 ) IN pursuance of the said Government Order, the Federation was incorporated under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act on 10-1-I983. Bye-laws (3. 1) to (3. 3) enumerate the fundamental objectives of the federation :"3. 1 To acquire and take over as a going concern the business now carried on by the Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation limited; the Karnataka Milk Products Limited and any other company, Concern, Body Corporate, Cooperative Society under the control of State or Central Government, Local Body or authority or otherwise which is carrying on business for any one or all objects of the Federation and acquire, take over either by way of absolute purchase or lease or in any other manner all buildings, plant and machinery equipment, vehicles, installation, feeding stocks, feed mix plants and all other assets and liabilities related to the business of the existing Companies, concerns, Body Corporates in Dairy Industry and all such other assets as the Government of Karnataka may transfer to it from time to time. 3. 2 To carry out activities for promoting production, procurement, processing and marketing of milk and milk products for economic development of the farming community. 3. 3 Development and expansion of such other allied activities as may be conducive for the promotion of the Dairy Industry, improvement and protection of milk animals economic betterment of those engaged in milk production. 3. 2 To carry out activities for promoting production, procurement, processing and marketing of milk and milk products for economic development of the farming community. 3. 3 Development and expansion of such other allied activities as may be conducive for the promotion of the Dairy Industry, improvement and protection of milk animals economic betterment of those engaged in milk production. " among the other objects of the Federation, the following are also relevant: "3 3. 4 :establisli research and quality Control laboratories. 3. 3. 5 : Provide veterinary aid and artificial insemination services and to undertake Animal Husbandry activities so as to improve the animal health care and disease control facilities, and assist the member Unions in doing the some. 3. 3. 12 : Promote the organisation of Primary Societies and assist member in organisation of the Primary Societies. 3. 3. 18 : Undertake or assist programmes of research and development. 3. 3. 19: Establish a Research and Development Association having independent existence to contribute to its funds and to rise funds for the same from the member unions. 3. 3. 21 : Work as an Administrator of its member Unions at the request of the Registrar and to take over the management of any member partially or fully, in the event of certain circumstances under sections 30, 30 (a) and 30 (b) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. 3. 3. 23 : To assist the member Unions to own and rear hard of cattle as may be required to undertake the breeding programme in the area. "bye-law (5. 1) provides that the membership of the Federations shall be open for (a) Government of Karnataka, (b) Government of India and (c) the Cooperative Milk Producers' Unions. Bye-law (4) provides that the funds of the Federation may be raised by shares, debentures, deposits, loans, grants, aids and subsidiaries, Donations arnd Entrance Fees and by accepting funds or lons from any development agency or financial institution. Bye-law 20 provides that the Board of Directors of the Federation shall consist of the following persons :" (I) Chairman of the affiliated Unions. (ii) Registrar of Co-operative Societies. (iii) One nominee of the State Government (Secretary, Animal husbandry, Fisheries and Forest Department ). (iv) One nominee of the President of India, (v) One nominee of the National Dairy Development Board, (vi) One nominee of the Indian Dairy Corporation. (ii) Registrar of Co-operative Societies. (iii) One nominee of the State Government (Secretary, Animal husbandry, Fisheries and Forest Department ). (iv) One nominee of the President of India, (v) One nominee of the National Dairy Development Board, (vi) One nominee of the Indian Dairy Corporation. (vii) Managing Director of the Federation (Ex-officio) and (viii) Director of Animal Husbandry and Veternary Services, government of Karnataka. "bye-law (20. 1. 2.) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Bye-laws, the Government may nominate initially the members of the Board including the Chairman for a period not exceeding 3 years from the date of starting of the Federation. Bye-law (20 13) provides that any member nominated to the board may at any tine resign from his office by sending a latter to Government and such resignation shall come into effect from the date on which it is accepted by the Government bye-law 26 8 (a) provides that the Expert panel will recommend in regard to the administrative set up of the Federation including the Staff required, qualification, experience, job requirements etc. etc. and shall be responsible for selection of all employees for the posts of FDC and above. The said Except Panel consists of the Chairman of the Federation, nominee of the Government of Karnataka and a representative of the Indian Dairy Corporation or the National Dairy development Board and the Managing Director of the Federation. ( 5 ) AT this stage, reference can be made to the contents of another government Order, dated 20-3-1987 relating to Transfer of Dairies. ( 5 ) AT this stage, reference can be made to the contents of another government Order, dated 20-3-1987 relating to Transfer of Dairies. The preamble states, inter alia that the Government of Karnataka had invested in the share capital and sanctioned several loans to the Federation and the District Co-operative Milk Unions, in addition offering several guarantees for them; that, in the Agreement executed by the State Government with the World Bank, the State Government had committed to meet the lossess incurred by the Dairies established under the Project until they are transferred to the Unions; that so long as the Dairies were part of the Government the cash losses had to be subsidised by the Government fully; the Government was keen on transferring most of the Dairies with chilling plants to the respective Milk Producers' Unions; however Bangalore dairy, Mother Dairy at Yelabanka, the Product dairy at Gejjalagere, two cattle feed plants in the Karnataka Dairy Development Project area, central Training Institute, the Training Centres of Mysore, Dharwad, gulbarga and Diagnostic Laboratories, Bull Breeding Farm and Frozen semen Bank, Hasaragatta will have to be centrally managed by the federation, as they will have to eater to the needs of the entire State. Accordingly, by the said order, the Government accorded sanction for transfer of some of the dairies specified in the order, with all assets, and staff by the Federation to the District Cooperative Milk Unions with effect from 1-4-1987. By another Government Order, dated 5-1-1990, the Government ordered that the Department of Animal Husbandry, fisheries and Forest shall be the Administrative Head of Department, for the Federation, so far as its administrative and technical matters are concerned. It is also admitted that the losses incurred by the Dairy Units entrusted to the Management of the Federation are reimbursed by the State government. It is also not in dispute that the policy decisions in regard to Federation including fixation of milk prices by the Federation are monitored and controlled by the Department of Animal Husbandry and the Minister of Animal Husbandry regularly announces the decisions relating to the Federation. It is also not in dispute that the policy decisions in regard to Federation including fixation of milk prices by the Federation are monitored and controlled by the Department of Animal Husbandry and the Minister of Animal Husbandry regularly announces the decisions relating to the Federation. ( 6 ) IN the statement of objections, the Federation has admitted that it was formed with a view to expand dairy Development activities in the entire State of Karnataka and to fulfil the obligation of Indian Dairy corporation/national Dairy Development Board and to complete the three tier system known as AMUL pattern system, that is, the Diary cooperative Societies at the village level, the District Milk Unions at the district Level and the Federation as the apex body at the State Level. It was also admitted that the assets, liabilities and personal of the Karnataka dairy Development Corporation were transferred to the Federation with effect from 1-5-1984 for implementing the expansion programmes and dairy Development Activities on a large scale with World Bank Assistance and in pursuance of the Government Order, dated 20-3-1987, the assets, liabilities and personnel of certain Dairies under the Control of the federation were transferred to the respective milk producers Unions. ( 7 ) THE question for consideration is having regard to the aforesaid factors, the Federation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the State and therefore an authority answering the definition of 'state' occuring in Article 12. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents relied on several decisions of the Supreme Cpurt to indicate the tests to determine when an entity can be said to fall under the word other authorities' and thus 'state' occurring in Article 12. The earlier case, namely the decisions of Sabhajit Tewari v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1239. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 . Ramana Dayaram shetty v. The International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and V P. Werehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, AIR 1980 SC 840 , were considered by a Constitution Beach of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardl and Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 . Ramana Dayaram shetty v. The International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and V P. Werehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, AIR 1980 SC 840 , were considered by a Constitution Beach of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardl and Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 . In that case, the question that arose for consideration was whether the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, which was sponsored by the government of India and established and managed by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was an 'authority' falling within the definition of 'state' in Article 12 The Supreme Court culled out and summarised the several relevant tests from the earlier decisions, in particular from the decision in-International Air Port Authority case, to determine as to when an entity can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government. The tests are : (A) Whether the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by government. If so it would go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State Government; (B) Whether the financial assistance of the State to the Corporation is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the corporation. If so, it would afford some indication of the Corporation being impregnated with Governmental character; (C) Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status, which is State conferred or state protected; (D) Whether there is a deep and pervasive State control. If so it indicates that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality; (E) Whether the functions of the Corporations are of public importance and closely related to Government functions; (F) Whether any department or unit of the Government is specifically transferred to the Corporation; (G) Whether any statutory duties are imposed upon the Corporation. The Supreme Court pointed out that these tests were neither conclusive nor clinching, but are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution. The court cautioned that while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities'', it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the government within the sweep of the expression. The court cautioned that while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities'', it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the government within the sweep of the expression. Thereafter the court proceeded to consider the question whether Corporate Bodies create under a Statute and not by a statute, could be considered as 'state' and held as follows :"we may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created hy a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The Corporation may be a statutory Corporation created by a statute or it may be a government company or a company formed under the Companies act, 1956, it may be a Society registered under the Societies registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whether be its genetical origin, it would be an 'authority' within meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally -applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression 'authority' in Article 12. "the Supreme Court then added that a juristic entity which may be an 'authority' and therefore 'state' under Article 12 may not be 'state' for the purpose of Articles 309, 310 and 311. "the Supreme Court then added that a juristic entity which may be an 'authority' and therefore 'state' under Article 12 may not be 'state' for the purpose of Articles 309, 310 and 311. In the light of the aforesaid principles and tests the Supreme Court proceeded to consider whether the regional Engineering College, Srinagar was 'state' under Article 12 and answered the question in the affirmative in the following manner :"it is in the light of this discussion that we must now proceed to examine whether the Society in the present case is an 'authority' falling within the definition of State in Article 12. Is it an instrumemality or agency of the Government? The answer must obviously be in the affirmative if we have regard to the memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society. The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the govrnments of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajas than and utter Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The monies required for running the college are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of jammu and Kashmir and even if any other monies are to be received by the Society. it can be done only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The Rules to be made by the Society arc also required to have the prior approval of the State and the Central Governments and the accounts of the Society have also to be submitted to both the Governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction, the Society is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State government with approval of the Central Government in respect of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing committee The control of the State and the Central governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Governments. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the state or Central Government can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the state or Central Government can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is in-charge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the central Governments. It will thus seen that the State government and by reason of the provision for approval, the central Government also, have full control of the working of the Society and it would be incorrect to say that the Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Governments and to use the words of Ray, C. J. in Sukhdev Singh's case air 1975 SC 1331 supra the voice is that of the State and the central Governments and the hands are also of the State and the Central Governments. We must, therefore, hold that 'the society is an instrumentality or the agency of the State and the Central Governments and it is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12. " ( 9 ) IN Somprakash Rekhi v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212 Krishna iyer, J. after referring to Sukhdev's case and Airport Authority's case held that the preponderant Considerations for pronouncing an entity as State agency or instrumentality are (a) financial resources of the State being the chief funding source; (b) financial character being Governmental in essence; (c) Plenary control residing in Government; (d) prior history of the same activity having been carried on by Government and made over to the new entity, and (e) some element of authority or command. ( 10 ) IN P. K. Ramachandra lyer v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541 the Supreme Court considered whether Indian Council of Agriculture research (ICAR) which was a society registered under the Societies registration Act, an instrumentality of the State. ( 10 ) IN P. K. Ramachandra lyer v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541 the Supreme Court considered whether Indian Council of Agriculture research (ICAR) which was a society registered under the Societies registration Act, an instrumentality of the State. It was found that icar came into existence as a department of the Government and continued to be an attached office and in almost inseparable adjunct of the government; that though it had an outward from of being a Society, it could be styled as a Society set up by the State; that it was wholly financed by the Government of India; that its object was agricultural research, for development of agricultural, which was a responsibility of the government; that Government of India transferred the Research institutes set up by it to ICAR; that the control of Government of India. permeated through all its activities. Applying the principles laid down in International Airport Authority's case and Ajay Hasia's case, ICAR was held to be an instrumentality of the State. ( 11 ) IN two subsequent decisions the Supreme Court cautioned that mere Governmental control is not sufficient to hold that a Corporation created by or under a statute will be an instrumentality of the State; but it is further necessary to show that either Governmental business had been undertaken by the entity or what was expected to be public obligation of the 'state' should be undertaken to be performed as a part of the entity's function. Takraj Vasandi v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469 and Chander Mohan Khanna v. N. C. E R. T. , AIR 1992 SC 76 , ( 12 ) IN Tekraj Vasandi's case the question that arose for consideration was whether the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (ICPS), a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act was an instrumentality of the State. After referring to the gamut of earlier decisions on the subject and the tests laid down to find out whether an entity is an instrumentality of the State, the Supreme Court observed :"it is time to turn to the facts of the present case to find out as to what the conclusion should be when the tests formulated by the several cases of this court referred to above are applied. There cannot indeed be a strait jacket formula. There cannot indeed be a strait jacket formula. It is not necessary that all the tests should be satisfied, for reaching the conclusion either for or against holding an institution to be 'state'. In a given case some of the features may emerge so boldly and prominently that a second view may not be possible. There may yet be other cases where the matter would be on the broder line and it would be difficult to take one view or other outright ""the objects of the Society were not governmental business but were certainly the aspects which were expected to equip members of Parliament and the State Legislatures with the requisite knowledge and experience for better functioning. Many of the objects adopted by the Society were not confined to the two Houses of Parliament and were intended to have an impact on Society at large. ""we have several cases of societies registered under Societies registration Act which have been treated as 'state' but in each of those cases it would appear on analysis that entire governmental business had been undertaken by the Society or what was expected to be public obligation of the 'state' had been undertaken to be performed as a part of the Society's function In a Welfare State, as has been pointed out on more that one occasion by this court, Governmental control is very pervasive and in fact touches all aspects of social existence In the absence of a fair application of the tests to be made, there is possibility of turning every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the State. That obviously should not serve the purpose and may be far from reality A board 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. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case, we are not in a position to hold that ICPS is either an agency or instrumentality of the State so as to come within the purview of other authorities' in Article 12 of the Constitution. We must say that ICPS is a case of its type typical in many ways and the normal tests may perhaps not properly apply to test its character. We must say that ICPS is a case of its type typical in many ways and the normal tests may perhaps not properly apply to test its character. " ( 13 ) IN Chander Mohan Khanna's case, the Supreme Court considered whether the National Counci I of Educational Resarch and Training (NCERT) a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act was an instrumentality of State. The court held that NCERT did not satisfy the requirements of 'state' under Article 12 and was merely an autonomous body. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below :"article 12 should nut be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body vhich has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression 'state'. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of welfare State, independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State Control. The State control does not render such bodies as 'state' under Article 12. The State control, however vast and pervasive, is not determinative. The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an importance public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body Is 'state'. If the Government operates behind a corporate veil, carrying out governmental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance, there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. ""the object of the NCERT as seen from the above analysis is to assist the advice the Ministry of Education of Social Welfare in the implementation of the Governmental polices and major programmes in the filed of education particularly school education. The NCERT undertakes several kinds of programmes and activities connected with the co-ordination of research extension services and training, dissemination of improved educational programmes. It also undertakes preparation and publication of books, materials, periodicals and other literature. These activities are not wholly related to governmental functions. Thesr affairs of the NCERT are conducted by the executive Committee comprising of Government servants and educationists. It also undertakes preparation and publication of books, materials, periodicals and other literature. These activities are not wholly related to governmental functions. Thesr affairs of the NCERT are conducted by the executive Committee comprising of Government servants and educationists. The Executive Committee would enter into arrangements with Government, public or private organisations or individuals in fui therance of the objectives for implementation of programmes The funds or NCERT consist of : (i) grants made by the Government, (ii) contribution from other sources, and (iii) income from its own assets. It is free to apply its income and property towards the promotion of its objectives and implementation of the programmes. The government control is confined only to the proper utilisation of the grant. The NCERT is thus largely an autonomous body. " ( 14 ) REFERENCE may also be made to a full Bench decision of this court in Rudrappa v. State of Karnataka and Others, W. P. No. 11134 of 1987, dated 26-7-1991, wherein this court considered the question whether a Primary cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank governed by chapter XI of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, is 'state' under Article 12. This court held that as the funds used by such Bank are governmental funds, and as the Bank discharges governmental functions for the benefit of the Society and is thus an instrumentality through which the developmental activities are sought to be accelerated and as substantial control of the Bank vests in the State Government or its officers, such a Bank is 'state' under Article 12. ( 15 ) APPLYING these aforesaid principles, let us consider the position of the Federation. It is true that the entire share capital is not met by the State Government; that the membership is open not only to the State and Central Governments, but also to the Co-operative Milk Producers' unions; that provision is made for obtaining finances from sources other than the Government; that the power of management lies in a Board which consists not only the Government nominess and officers, but Chairman of affiliated Milk Producers' Unions; and that provision is made for distribution of profits among the members, by way of dividend on the paid up share capital. But these answeres in the negative, to some of the tests do not mean that the federation is not 'state' It is not necessary that all the tests laid down by the Supreme Court should be satisfied to reach the conclusion as to whether a given entity is a State. ( 16 ) IT is evident from the facts narrated in paras (3) to (6) above that the Federation is created by the State Government to implement and to carry out Dairy Development Programme in the State. Dairy Development is a part of State's endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and to take steps for preserving and improving breeds of cows and other milch cattle under the Directive principles of the State Policy, as contained in Article 48 of the Constitution of India. The Dairy units that were being originally run as Departments of the State Government, were transferred to the Federation on its incorporation, either directly or through Karnataka Dairy Development corporation Ltd. , to cut down the losses incurred by the State Government. The functions of the Federation as detailed in the Government order dated 6-11-1982 and the Bye-laws of the Federation, show that they are of public importance and closely related to the Government's functions relating to organising animal husbandry. In the filed in which it operates, the federation enjoys monopoly status conferred by the State. Most of the finances, loans and Bank guarantees required for running the affairs of the federation have been provided by the State Government. The deep and pervasive control of the State over the Federation over the functions and working of the Federation are evident from the Government Orders and bye-laws 3. 1,5. 1, 20 (1 1 to 13), 26. 3, 26,8 (a) referred to above It is thus evident that Federation has undertaken and is executing functions which were earlier discharged by the Government and which are public obligations of the State Therefore, there is no doubt that the federation as it presently stands, is an agent and instrumentality if the State and therefore, 'state' within the meaning of that expression in Article 12. ( 17 ) WE may point out here that aeveral other High Courts have. ( 17 ) WE may point out here that aeveral other High Courts have. while dealing with similar Federations in other States, consistently taken the view that such Federations are instrumentalities of the State See the cases of A. P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Dr. Yarlagadda purnachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1984 LIC (NOC) 21 Punjab State co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. K. S Goyal v. State of Punjab 1989 (3) SLR 258 and National Dairy Development Board-5. A. Rahim v. NDDB, (1984 (1) LLJ 496 ). We are afraid that learned Single Judge took a narrow view in holding that the Federation is not 'state'. Assuming that the Co-operative Milk Producers' Unions, which are the members of the Federation, are not instrumentalities of the State as held by the learned single Judge, it does not follow that the Federation of such Milk Producers' union is not an instrumentality of State. The totality of circumstances and the answers to important tests laid by the Supreme Court as to whether the functions of the entity are of public importance and closely related to government functions and whether any Department or wing of the government has been transferred to the new entity, and whether there is deep and pervasive State Control over the affairs and functioning of the entity, ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge, in determining whether the Federation is 'state' under Article 12 He has failed to do and bis reasoning and decision cannot be sustaind. ( 18 ) WE therefore answer the reference in the affirmative and hold that the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. , is State within the meaning of that expression in Article 12 of the Constitution. --- *** --- .