DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Managing Director of the National Council of State Agriculture Marketing Board (for short COSAMB) pursuant to the Resolution dated 16. 11. 1995. By the order dated 26. 11. 1996, the Chief Patron and the Chairman of COSAMB have conveyed to the petitioner that the term of the petitioner s service has expired on 30th November, 1996 and consequently he could hand over the charge to the Chairman on 30th November, 1996, The petitioner alleges that he was appointed for a term of five years and as such the order of 26th November, 1996 is bad in law. He also challenges the legality of the order as well as the competence of the Chief Patron and Chairman to issue any such order. ( 2 ) THIS Court issued notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted. Mr. Shankarlal Guru. Chairman, COSAMB filed a counter affidavit oh behalf of respondents 1 and 2. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit the respondents have taken the preliminary objection that respondent N6. 1 and 2 are hot State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not maintainable. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a society registered under Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973. It is a private voluntarily organisation and has no connection with the Government in any manner. The membership in the society is voluntary. The source of income of this society is the contribution received from its members. No grant or aid is provided by the Central or the State Government. The Government has neither any supervisory power nor control on the working of the council. ( 5 ) IT is also slated that the council is not a statutory body, it has no governmental duties or functions assigned to it by any authority. In view of these facts this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable on this short ground that none of the respondents is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such no direction or mandamus can be issued against them. ( 6 ) MRS Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Government has no control on the appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and on their removal or in continuation. ( 6 ) MRS Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Government has no control on the appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and on their removal or in continuation. ( 7 ) NO Government nominee participates in the election of respondent No. 1. The apex body has no control on its members. Under the regulation of the society, the apex body does not control or monitor the functioning of the members. No approval for winding up this organisation is necessary from the Government and not even the information is not required to be given to the Government. ( 8 ) REPLYING to the preliminary objection, Mr. Hardev Singh, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that this w rit petition is maintainable against the respondent No. 1. He submitted that the membership of the Board is confined to the States Agriculture Marketing Boards which are created by the statutes, therefore, the apex body becomes an authority and a w rit petition against an authority is maintainable. ( 9 ) MR. Hardev Singh had REFERRED TO to the various clauses/rules and regulations of the COSAMB. For proper appreciation of the controversy in issue the aims and objectives of the COSAMB are set out as under: OBJECTIVES The Objects for which the National Council is established are:- (a) To provide a Common Forum of the member State Agricultural Marketing Boards to discuss the problems and issues relating to Development of Agricultural Markets and other activities of the Boards in order to enable the members to share the experiences of the various States in the cause of promoting modem marketing facilities together with ensuring healthy storage/handling of agricultural produce and building of a think tank at the national level to develop a system of Agricultural Marketing keeping abreast with the latest developments in the systems of Agricultural Marketing any where in the country or any where in the world as seen or known by any of the medium. (b) To create a common base for the State Agricultural Marketing Boards to mobilise information from all over India for the purpose of feeding such information to the members to serve as guidance or inspiration to improve the structure of Agricultural Marketing through-out the country. (b) To create a common base for the State Agricultural Marketing Boards to mobilise information from all over India for the purpose of feeding such information to the members to serve as guidance or inspiration to improve the structure of Agricultural Marketing through-out the country. (c) To provide facilities to the members to exchange views and share experiences in the matter of assessment of financial requirements for various components of Agricultural Marketing in order to fix norms (and to revise the same from time to time) for credit support and central assistance and to develop logic based combined force to help the members in getting necessary credit from Banks and adequate assistance from Central Government. (d) To create a non-political autonomous body at the national level to assist the Government of India and the State Governments in the interest of public, especially the producers and the consumers, to encourage healthy growth of a marketing system for the Agricultural Produce and its bye-products by encouraging active involvement of all concerned in systematising the entire system by introduction of management techniques duly covered by quality control measures based on Scientific approach. (e) To bring about uniformity in the system of agricultural Marketing all over the country aiming at uniform adoption ofthe best ofthe proven practices picked up from the States where a particular system or technology finds favour for adoption in other States. (f) To create a national body representing member States to organise seminars/ workshops and exhibitions in order to analyse problems of Agricultural Marketing for practical solution on the one hand and to print out success stories for the benefit of members to consider adoption on the other. (g) To organise inter-State visits of producers, travels and officials of the Boards in order to encourage exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences. (h) To enable the members to see the functioning of Boards in other States in order to work for improvement in functioning ofthe Boards so that their activities are more powerful, vibrant and open to correction and expansion. (h) To enable the members to see the functioning of Boards in other States in order to work for improvement in functioning ofthe Boards so that their activities are more powerful, vibrant and open to correction and expansion. (i) To create a bridge between the Government of India and the State Agricultural Marketing Boards and establish a link binding the Boards together within themselves to provide an all India status of a broad vision to various members so that a process of change for the better in all facets of Agricultural Marketing is set in motion to accelerate the progress in quality of service together with expansion of activities. (j) To set up common library/libraries in order to mobilise best of books and updated literature for the benefit of members. (k) To set up common laboratories for agmarking and assist in improving the functioning and usefulness of existing laboratories s by proper co-ordination. (1) To establish contacts with various institutions and organisations in India and abroad in order to keep abreast with latest developments in the field of agricultural Marketing and to build up sound statistics for the benefit of members. (m) To undertake professional, technical management and infrastructural consultancy services for the benefit of members. (n) To undertake studies, surveys, researchprojects, etc. , and mobilise information and material to disseminate for the benefit of members. (o) To co-operate w ith other similar bodies, institutions and 2 associations in India and abroad with. areas of common interest for furthering the cause of Agricultural Marketing by way of mutual affiliation. (p) To seek representation of the Council and the individual members in various Committees, bodies delegations, teams, etc. set up by the Central Government or State Governments on the subjects/projects where Agricultural Marketing has a role to play. (q) To assist/advise the Government of India the State Governments or members in setting up training centres to cater to the needs of improving professional efficiency and the know how . (r) To establish contacts and relations with farmers organisations, trade organisations, chambers of commerce, etc. in India and abroad to look for opportunities to sponsor study teams or individual officials/non-officials functionaries of the Boards or Agricultural Markets to educate them and broaden their vision. (r) To establish contacts and relations with farmers organisations, trade organisations, chambers of commerce, etc. in India and abroad to look for opportunities to sponsor study teams or individual officials/non-officials functionaries of the Boards or Agricultural Markets to educate them and broaden their vision. (s) To generate further information in the course of achieving above objections are and other areas of service which may be useful or promoting the cause of streamlining the working and systems of Agricultural Marketing. ( 10 ) MR. Hardev Singh submitted that the membership is confined to the State Union Agriculture Marketing Board established under the provisions of the State/union Territory Market Act. He also submitted that the respondent No. 1 discharges public functions which are monopolistic in character. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. ( 11 ) MR. Hardev Singh placed reliance on M/s Star Enterprises Etc. Vs The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors. JT 1990 (2) SC 401 In this case the question arose whether the writ petition against the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited is maintainable or not. The respondent-City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, has been constituted as the New Town Development Authority under sub section 3 (a) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra original Town Planning Act, 1966. The respondent is empowered to dispose of land vested in it and the respondent has formulated with the approval of the Slate Government under Section 159 of the said Act a code for regulating industrial disposal of land. ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court in this case has taken the view that the writ petition is maintainable against the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. This case is of no avail to the petitioner because the said Corporation is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act and has been constituted as the New Town Development Authority under the Maharashtra Town Planning Act, 1976. ( 13 ) MR. Hardev Singh has also relied upon a letter dated 9. 12. 1991 issued from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to Chief Secretary in which it is mentioned that the council is an apex body of the State/up Agricultural Marketing Board. ( 13 ) MR. Hardev Singh has also relied upon a letter dated 9. 12. 1991 issued from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to Chief Secretary in which it is mentioned that the council is an apex body of the State/up Agricultural Marketing Board. This Society maintain a close liason between the Central and State Government and render necessary advice and guidance to members. From this letter it can also be established that respondent No. 1 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) MRS. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Chandramohan Khanna Vs The National Council of Education Research and Training and Others AIR 1992 SC 76 . In this case, their lordships of the Supreme Court has considered the following leading cases : " (I) Sukhdev Singh Vs Bhagat Ram, (1975) 1 SCC 41 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1331 ) ; (ii) R. D. Shetty Vs International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ); (iii) Ajay Hasia Vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardhi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) and (iv) Som Prakash Rekhi Vs Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449 : ( AIR 1981 SC 212 ). " ( 15 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court after considering these judgments have observed in the aforesaid judgment that Article 12 should not be stretched so it to bring in several autonomous body which 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 modem concept of Welfare State, independent institution, corporation arid 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 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 important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is state . The financial contribution by the State is 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 important 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. In this case their Lordships were called upon to decide whether the national Council of Education Research and Training and Others is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) IN this case the respondent NCERT is also State registered under Societies Registration Act: Like all societies it has rules of internal management. If we carefully examine the memorandum of the NCERT which has been examined by the Supreme Court and the relevant portion is set out as under: "under Clause 3. 1 of the memorandum of Association the object of the Council is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of its policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly school education. Under clause 3. 2 the Council is empowered, for the realisation of the above objectives to undertake several kinds of programmes and activities which include co-ordination or research, extension services and training, dissemination of improved educational techniques and practices in schools, collaboration in educational programmes, distribution of ideas and information, preparation and publication of books, materials, periodicals and other literature and allied activities. Under clause 5 the income and property of the Council is to be applied towards the promotion of its objects and cannot be disposed of by way of dividends, bonus etc. But under this clause, the Council is free to apply the income and property towards its objectives in such manner as it may think fit. It is subject to the limitations placed by the Government of India in this regard only in respect of the expenditure of grants made by the Government. Under clause 6 the Government of India could review the work and progress of the Council and take appropriate action to give effect to the reports received on enquiries. It is subject to the limitations placed by the Government of India in this regard only in respect of the expenditure of grants made by the Government. Under clause 6 the Government of India could review the work and progress of the Council and take appropriate action to give effect to the reports received on enquiries. In addition, the Government could at any time issue directions to the Council on important matters of policy and programmes rule 3 of the Rules of the Council which consists mainly of various Government officials but also includes the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, four Vice- Chancellors and a number of nominees, four from school teachers and several others. Rule 7 enables the Government to fix the period of appointment of the members and to extend it from time to time. The council s affairs are conducted by the Executive Committee whose constitution is outlined in Rule 223. This includes various Government servants but it also includes four educationists and three Professors and Heads of Departments w ho may be nominated by the President. Rule 37 provides that if there is any difference of opinion the view of the majority will prevail subject to a veto which could be exercised by the Government of India within a month. It also enables the President to refer any question for the decision of the Government. Rule 40 enables the Executive Committee to frame and amend Regulations not inconsistent with the rules. Rule 42 empowers the Executive Committee to enter into arrangements with Government, public or private organisations or individuals in furtherance of its objectives and implementation of its programmes. Rule 57 provides that the funds of the Council shall consist of (i) grants made by Government; (ii) contribution from other sources; (iii) Income from the assets of the Council; and (iv) Receipts of the Council from other sources. " ( 17 ) EVEN with so much of the governmental control in many ways, the Court observed that the respondent is not a state within Article 12 of the Constitution. ( 18 ) THE similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Tekraj Vasandhi alias K. L. Basandhi Vs Union of India 1988 (2) SCR 260 . This Court was required to determine whether the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (ICPS) is State under Article 12. ( 18 ) THE similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Tekraj Vasandhi alias K. L. Basandhi Vs Union of India 1988 (2) SCR 260 . This Court was required to determine whether the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (ICPS) is State under Article 12. The ICPS was a registered society financed mostly by the Central Government and partly by gifts and donations from Indian and foreign agencies. The first President of the society was the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Out of the five Vice-Presidents, three were the then Chief Justice of India and the Attorney General. The objects of the Society are promotion of research in constitutional law, setting up of legislative research and reference service for the benefit of legislators, organisation of training programmes in matters of parliamentary interest and publication of the journal. The Court found that the ICPS was born as a voluntary organisation. If found further that though the annual financial contribution from the State was substantial, it was entitled to receive aid from the public and in fact, received contributions from other sources. Its objects were non governmental business. In the light of these factors it was held that the ICPS was not a State. The Court observed as under: "in a Welfare State. . . . Governmental 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. " ( 19 ) IF we apply the principles which have been laid down by the celebrated Judgments of the Supreme Court and examine this case from that perspective then the conclusion becomes irresistible that the respondent No. 1 cannot be considered a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution for the following reasons: i) Its object is non governmental; ii) Its membership is voluntary; iii) The society is not a creation of any statute. iv) There is no grant or aid received from the central or state government. v) The govt. has neither any supervisory power nor any control on the working of the council. vii) The council is not a statutory body and no government duties or functions are discharged by it. iv) There is no grant or aid received from the central or state government. v) The govt. has neither any supervisory power nor any control on the working of the council. vii) The council is not a statutory body and no government duties or functions are discharged by it. viii) The Govt has no control on the appointment/removal of Chairman/vice- Chairman of the Council. ix) The Govt. nominees do not participate in the election of the council. x) The council has no control on the functioning of its members. The members are not accountable to the council regarding its functioning in any manner. xi) Even for winding up of the respondent society no approval or permission of any kind is necessary from the Government. The Government does not even need to be informed about it. ( 20 ) ON consideration of the material on record, and analysis of catena of Supreme Court Judgments, it can be safely stated that the respondent council is neither a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, nor even an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent council. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the threshold preliminary submission of the respondent regarding maintainability. ( 21 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.