M. KATJU, S. K. SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant for the respondent. ( 2 ) SRI Ravi Kant raised a preliminary objection that this writ is not maintainable as the respondent No. 1 is a private body and is not an Instrumentality of the State. We agree with this preliminary objection. In our opinion, the respondent No. 1 is a purely private body. Ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. We are of the opinion that the respondent No. 1 is not an instrumentality of the State and hence no writ petition lies against it. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Vijay narayan Ojha, 2001 (2) AWC 1071 : 2001 (43) ALR 276. In our opinion, this decision is clearly distinguishable. No doubt in some exceptional cases, a writ lies against a private body on which some public duty has been imposed by the statute. In our opinion, the respondent No. 1 is not performing any public duty. Merely because it has opened a school that does not mean that running of a school is its main occupation. In fact, it is incidental to the main function of the respondent which is engaged in business. ( 3 ) SRI Ravi Kant relied on the decisions in S. S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1981 SC 1395 ; Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469 ; Mohan Khanna v. N. C. E. R. T. , 1991 (4) SCC 578 ; Beinan Krishna Base v. United India Assurance Co. , 2001 (6) SCC 477 etc. , in support of his preliminary objection. We agree with the preliminary objection of Sri Ravi Kant. ( 4 ) THE writ petition is, in our opinion, not maintainable and it is dismissed accordingly. .