JUDGMENT : S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-Both the appeals having preferred against common judgment dated 11th February, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1891 of 1998 (R) [reported in 2000(2) PLJR 569], they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge declared the appellant Bokaro Steel Employees (Administrative Services) Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (Co-operative Society for short), as an instrumentality of the State and authority as mentioned under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge further held that the impugned order dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the Cooperative Society reducing the scale and Dearness Allowance (D.A. for short) from 0.67% and 0.55% per slab to Rs. 2/- only per slab is unjustified, being not in consonance with the earlier decision of the cooperative society, set aside the order with direction to the Co-operative Society to reconsider the claim of the writ petitioner private Respondents herein. 3. The appellants have raised two questions for determination, namely, (a) whether the Co-operative Society is an instrumentality of the State/authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition against the Co-operative Society is maintainable or not and (b) whether the High Court has any jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to determine the question with regard to payment of D.A. and fixation of pay on the basis thereto? 4. The writ petition was preferred by petitioners Arvind Kumar and others impleading both Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL for short) and the Bokaro Steel Employees (Administrative Services) Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (Co-operative Society) and their officials, seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing them to release full D.A. i.e. 0.67% and 0.55% respectively according to index which was alleged to have been withheld since November, 1996 with further prayer to direct the aforesaid Respondents to pay the differences of D.A. from November, 1996. During the pendency of the writ petition, vide decision dated 29th January, 1999, the co-operative society fixed the salary and DA which was alleged to be reduction of salary and D.A. By amendment petition, the decision aforesaid dated 29th January, 1999 was challenged. 5. The appellant SAIL and their officials appeared, opposed the writ petition as not maintainable with further plea that the SAIL is not a necessary nor proper party. 5. The appellant SAIL and their officials appeared, opposed the writ petition as not maintainable with further plea that the SAIL is not a necessary nor proper party. They have been impleaded only with a view to establish the maintainability of the writ petition. The Co-operative Society also raised similar objections relating to the maintainability of the writ petition against it and its officials as, according to It, the Cooperative Society was neither an instrumentality of the State nor authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further opposition was made by the Co-operative Society on merit of the claim, as matter relates to fixation of DA slab and pay which was stated to be beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The first question relating to status of Co-operative Society and maintainability of writ petition against it was answered by the learned Single Judge on the basis of certain evidences enclosed with the writ petition, namely, an order dated 3rd February, 1978 issued by the Bokaro Steel Plant; Office order dated 8th February, 1986; Office Order dated 9th September, 1988; Office order dated 29th December, 1997; Office order dated 15th February, 1996, all issued by Sail, were enclosed as Annexure-11 and Annexure-13 series. For the said reason, it is desirable to discuss the aforesaid Office orders, relevant provisions of bye-laws and other relevant facts for determination of Issue NO.1. 7. The Co-operative Society was registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 on 2nd May, 1978. The object of Society was shown at Clause-3 of bye-laws, as quoted hereunder: "3. The objects of Society are : i. To create funds to be lent out to or invested for its members or for their benefit, but subject always to the provision of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Act (VI of 1935) and Rules framed there under. ii. To encourage thrift, self-help and co-operation amongst members. and iii. To finance for the purchase of house hold and other utility items to the members." The provision of membership, admission and cessation was mentioned under Clause-6, whereby the membership was made open only to the employees of the Bokaro Steel Limited (BSI for short) above the age of 18 years working in the Administrative Services, as per Annexures. The provisions of share-holding were shown in Clauses 12 to 14. The provisions of share-holding were shown in Clauses 12 to 14. Under clause-11, it was stipulated that no member, excepting the State Govt. and/or other registered societies shall hold more than 100 (one hundred) shares, subject to maximum value of one-fifth of the total Share Capital. The provision to create fund is laid down under clause-16 of the bye-laws, which reads as follows : "Funds : The funds of the Society shall consist of : (i) paid up Share Capital subscribed by the members. (ii) Members' Deposits-Every member shall compulsorily make a monthly deposit of at least Rs. 10/- from his salary against which loans will be available in emergency. (iii) Voluntary Deposit from Members and (iv) Borrowings from Bokaro Steel Ltd., State Govt., Co-operative Bank and other agencies. Members' deposits under item (ii) and (iii) will earn interest as fixed by the Committee of Management from time to time. Each member will be issued a Pass Book of his deposit account. The total liability on account of deposits and borrowings shall not exceed to 10 (ten) times of paid-up Capital and Reserves at any time." . A Managing Committee prescribed under bye-laws for the management of the affairs of the Co-operative Society consisting of 9 (nine) members and General Body consisting of 7 (seven) elected members. As per Clause-26(b), the Chairman and one member of the Managing Committee shall be nominated by Bokaro Steel Limited provided the Company provides to the Co-operative Society initially a working capital of Rs. one lac in the shape of interest free loan, on its registration and may further extend loans to the Co-operative Society on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. The provisions aforesaid show that the BSL (A company of SAIL) was empowered to nominate the Chairman and one member of the Governing Body with condition that it is to grant a working capital of Rs. one lac to the co-operative society in the shape of interest free loan. The BSL was neither eligible under Clause-6 to be a member of the Co-operative Society nor it was ever made member of the Co-operative Society to have its own share in the Co-operative Society. 8. Much stress has been given on office order dated 3rd February, 1978 issued by the BSL. The BSL was neither eligible under Clause-6 to be a member of the Co-operative Society nor it was ever made member of the Co-operative Society to have its own share in the Co-operative Society. 8. Much stress has been given on office order dated 3rd February, 1978 issued by the BSL. It is a general order prior to creation of the Co-operative Society, in question, whereby it was communicated that the Board of Directors of BSL agreed to provide a minimum of Rs. 1 lac assistance to each Employee Co-operative Credit Society on its registration, towards initial working capital in the shape of interest free loan. Annexure-11 series are the copies of letters/orders dated 8th February, 1986, 9th September, 1988, and 19th December, 1997, apart from order dated 3rd February, 1978, as discussed above. The Office orders dated 8th February, 1986, 9th September, 1988 and 29th December, 1997, all issued by BSL simply show the nomination of Chairman of the Co-operative Society under clause-26 (b) of the bye-laws, as were made time to time. These letters neither create any right in favour of the Cooperative Society nor any statutory duty on the part of the BSL of SAIL. It further appears that the Co-operative Society in its meeting dated 12th February, 1996 resolved that the issue of wage 'revision and other allied matters of the employees of Co-operative Societies be examined by a committee consisting of certain officers of Bokaro Steel plant. This was circulated, vide Office Order dated 15th February, 1996 issued by BSL of SAIL. The writ petitioners cannot derive any advantage of the order dated 15th February, 1996 as the Employees (Administrative Services) of Bokaro Steel Ltd. Plant were the members of the Co-operative Society. If the Co-operative Society decided to constitute a committee to find out the wage revision of the employees of the Co-operative Society with a view to help the Co-operative Society, the Bokaro Steel Plant informed this to their officials so that they may submit report to the Chairman of the Co-operative Society. In this respect, one should keep in mind that the employees of Co-operative Society are not the employees of the BSL or SAIL. The employees of BSL are merely members-share holders of the Co-Operative Society. 9. In this respect, one should keep in mind that the employees of Co-operative Society are not the employees of the BSL or SAIL. The employees of BSL are merely members-share holders of the Co-Operative Society. 9. The tests for determination as to when a Body/Organisation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of a Government, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. In the case of Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib, reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 487, the Supreme Court noticed the earlier judgment in the International Airport Authority's case (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628) and summarised the relevant tests, as follows: "The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may now be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority's case ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ). TJ1ese tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because 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 with the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summa rise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority's case as follows : (1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or the agency of Government." (2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character." (3) "It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected." (4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality." (5) "If the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government." (6) "Specifically, if a department of Govt. is transferred to a Corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority's case, be an 'authority' and, therefore, 'State' within the meaning of the expression in Article 12." 10. A Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. Indian Institute of Bankers, reported in 2000 (2) P.L.J.R. 251, while observed that the term 'authority' used in Article 226 of Constitution must receive a liberal view since the High Court has wide power under Article 226 to issue writs for the enforcement not only of fundamental right but other rights as well, held that what is relevant is nature of the duty imposed on the body to bring in autonomous body within the sweep of the expression 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. It was further observed that in a welfare State independent institutions, corporations and agencies are generally subjected to some form of State control, that by itself may not render such bodies as 'State' under Article 12. 11. In the case of Shri Konaseema Co-op. Central Ltd. vs. N. Seetharama Raju, reported in AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 171, a Full Bench of the said High Court taking into consideration the functions of the Co-operative Banks were not of public importance and closely related to the Governmental functions, held that even such co-operative Banks cannot be characterised as 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 12. 12. In the present case, as none of the evidences enclosed or discussed by the learned Single Judge suggest that the BSUSAIL holds larger share capital of the co-operative society, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the BSL/or SAIL is granting financial assistance so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the Co-operative Society, Co-operative Society is not enjoying any monopoly status of the State or protected by the State or SAIL, no evidence to suggest that the BSL or SAIL has deep and pervasive control over the Co-operative Society nor the functions of the Co-operative Society is of any public importance closely related to functions of BSL or SAIL, in absence of the aforesaid relevant factors and evidence, the Co-operative Society cannot be held to be an instrumentality or authority of the State, as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 13. The question No. 1 is answered, accordingly, in negative, against the writ petitioners in favour of the Co-operative Society. 14. So far as the other question raised, in fact, not required to be determined, in the present appeals, as the writ petition itself was not maintainable against the Cooperative Society, not being a State or the authority as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, I may observe that generally the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not determine the question relating to D.A. slabs which requires determination on the basis of numerous facts by an Expert Body. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge being based on error of records and being in contravention to the decision rendered by the Courts from time to time, is set aside. 15. Both the appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.