K. RAMAMOORTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition againsta) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the clause whereby the managementhas reserved the right to terminate the services of its employees by givingone month s notice simpliciter in the service conditions of its employees;b) issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent not to alter theservice conditions of the petitioners, unilaterally to the prejudice of thepetitioners;c) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing them to dispensewith the unfair practice of keeping their employees under contract for manyyears without regularisation;d) to issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise theservices of the petitioner No. 2. " ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the respondent had bracketed the services inan arbitrary fashion and the respondent is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court,though a private organisation. ( 3 ) THE respondent had taken the stand that the writ is not maintainable and therespondent had not acted in accordance with the terms of the appointment. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. D. Gupta, and the senior counselfor the respondent, Mr Raj Birbal, made elaborate submissions both on themaintainability and on the merits. The main issue would be: Whether the writ iscompetent? ( 5 ) IT is stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition:"that the respondent is a Charitable Hospital formed in the year 1914 toprovide best medical care to all the patients without any discrimination by thequalified ad dedicated doctors. The focus of this hospital had been on thepoorest of the poor and the hospital has been doing yeoman service for thecare of the under privilege segments of the society. Funds were collectedfrom the Government and the Public by donations for charity work. Land wasallotted to the Trust by the State free of cost, on lease for perpetuity. It wascategorically held in the lease deed that the land could not be sub-let, sold,assigned or transferred and could never be used for any commercial purposefor any time. That the respondent trust was created to provide service to the community atlarge. The functions of the hospital are of Public importance and related togovernmental functions. No immovable property of the hospital can bedisposed of in any manner whatsoever without the approval of the Government. That the respondent trust was created to provide service to the community atlarge. The functions of the hospital are of Public importance and related togovernmental functions. No immovable property of the hospital can bedisposed of in any manner whatsoever without the approval of the Government. The entire property of the hospital is vested in the Stated. The MCD andndmc nominees are ex-officio Trustees of the Board of Trustees of therespondent hospital. The power to supervise and to take remedial steps tocorrect mismanagement, abuse of power or incompetence to exercise thepower are incidental to their constitutional powers. The hospital is running onthe recurring grants given by the Government every year. The accounts ofthe hospital are audited by the auditors approved by the Government. Thegovernment operates behind a corporate veil, carrying out the governmentalactivity and the governmental functions of vital public importance through therespondents. The activities of the respondents are of great importance topublic interest, concern and welfare, and are activities of the nature carriedon by a modern state and particularly a modern welfare state. " ( 6 ) IT is stated in paragraph 7. 7 of the writ petition that Eicher Group of Companieshave taken over the Trust and the very character of the Trust has been completely,destroyed by the persons who more managing the Trust. It is stated in the writ petitionthat challenging the appointment of nominees of Eicher Group of Companies asboard of Trustees, a suit No. 7992/97 is pending in this Court. It is also stated that thetrust, Hospital, is functioning on the basis of a decree passed by the learnedadditional District Judge in a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and the decree is filedas Annexure, p-4 to the writ petition. ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the respondent, Hospital, was receiving anominal annual grant of Rs. 1,42,500. 00 from NDMC and from 1. 4. 1996 no grant isbeing received from NDMC. Therefore, according to the respondent, Hospital, at allby any governmental authority and the writ is not maintainable. ( 8 ) THE main ground on which the learned counset for the petitioner, Mr. G. D. Gupta,submitted with reference to the point relating to the maintainability, was that the landon which the Hospital is housed was allotted by the Government, and, therefore, therespondent, Hospital, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It was also submitted by Mr. ( 8 ) THE main ground on which the learned counset for the petitioner, Mr. G. D. Gupta,submitted with reference to the point relating to the maintainability, was that the landon which the Hospital is housed was allotted by the Government, and, therefore, therespondent, Hospital, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It was also submitted by Mr. G. D. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the respondent, Hospital, isperforming a public duty, and, therefore, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THE principles with reference to the scope of jurisdiction of this court underarticle 226 of he Constitution of India have been laid down by a Full Bench of thiscourt in "m/s. Sangh Technologies Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India and Others",air 1996 Delhi 74. The petitioners do not satisfy the principles laid down by the Fullbench of this court would apply to the facts of this case. The respondent is a bodygoverned by the provisions of the decree passed by the learned Additional Districtjudge. Whether that body is functioning in accordance with the terms of the decree issubject matter of suit No. 7992/97 in this court. ( 10 ) THE Full Bench in "m/s. Sanghi Technologies Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of Indiaand Others", AIR 1996 Delhi 74 held:"how then to find out if a person or body falls within the ambit of "otherauthority" is the prime question. decipherable test or significant criteria to identify "other authority" was laiddown till the decision in R. D. Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority ofindia, 1979 (3) SCC 489 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) came, where some tests wereevolved. In some Prakash Rekhl Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449 : ( AIR 1981 SC 212 ), the court, besides others, referred and relied on twoearlier pronouncement of the Constitution Benches on the amplitude of "other authorities in Article 12 and came to the conclusion that "otherauthorities. . . . under the control of the Government of India in Article 12 iscomprehensive enough to take care of part III without unduly stretching themeaning of the State to rope in whatever any autonomous body which hassome nexus with Government". . . . under the control of the Government of India in Article 12 iscomprehensive enough to take care of part III without unduly stretching themeaning of the State to rope in whatever any autonomous body which hassome nexus with Government". The Supreme Court analysed its earlierdecision in Airport Authority s case ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), and called out thefollowing tests to decide whether a company or society or other authority is astate for the purpose of this Article: (I) If the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by the Government, itwould go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is aninstrumentality or agency of the Government. (ii) existence of deep and pervasive control of the State may offer anindication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality: (iii) If the financial assistance by the Government is so much as to meetalmost entire expenditure of the Corporation, it would be some indication ofthe same being impregnated with Governmental Character: (iv) monopoly status of a Corporation may be another indication of its being astate. (v) if the functions of the Corporation are of public importance and closelyrelated to governmental functions, it would be relevant factor in classifyingthe Corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the Government; (iv) specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a Corporation,it would be a strong factor supportive of its inference of the Corporation being ,an instrumentality or agency of the Government. " ( 11 ) THE petitioners have not understood the concept of public duty. In a democraticpolity like ours, all citizens have to participate in the governance of the State and in away every citizen is expected to act for the public good. In order to bring theorganisation to be amenable to writ jurisdiction, it should be shown to be performinga public duty in the sense in which it is understood. Running a hospital is held to be anindustry by the supreme Court of India. The organisation running the hospital, therefore,cannot be said to be performing a public duty so as to make it amenable to the writjurisdiction. That is settled position and that is what is considered by the Full Bench ofthis Court. In my view, the respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. ( 12 ) IN this view, I do not want to go into the rival contentions of the parties on themerits. That is settled position and that is what is considered by the Full Bench ofthis Court. In my view, the respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. ( 12 ) IN this view, I do not want to go into the rival contentions of the parties on themerits. It shall be open to the petitioners to have recourse to any other remedy opento them in law. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. ( 13 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.