JAGDISH BHALLA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, who was working as Head of Central Region, lucknow in Infrastructure Development Finance Company limited-respondent no. 1, has filed this writ petition challenging his discharge/removal by the letter dated 28th July, 2004 inter-alia on the ground that the employment of the petitioner in the respondent-company was not linked to or co-terminus with the existence or continuance of the Central Region of the Company at lucknow and was employed to work anywhere in the Company; and the impugned order has been issued by the Head Corporate planning HR and MIS whereas the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Managing Director / Chief Executive Officer. ( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent no. 1 and 2 is neither a "state" nor any "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as such it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) SRI Rajiv Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Infrastructure Development Finance company Limited [in short referred to as the "respondent company"] was incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and was specified as a Public Financial Institution in terms of Section 4a of the Companies Amendment Act 1999 ( No. 21 of 1999) by a circular No. 3 of 4. 5. 1999 issued by the Department of Company affairs, Government of India. The objects for which the company has been established is detailed in the Memorandum of association, a perusal of which reveals that the respondent company was set up for the purpose of developing and establishment of various infrastructure projects to develop the economic welfare of the country. The company has been charged with the responsibility of creating a wide network of infrastructure of Roads, Highways, Railways, Airways, Water Ways, Ports, transport System etc. According to learned Counsel, there were seven subscribers who formed the company. Out of these seven subscribers, six contributes more than eighty percent of the share holding. The company has been charged with the responsibility of creating a wide network of infrastructure of Roads, Highways, Railways, Airways, Water Ways, Ports, transport System etc. According to learned Counsel, there were seven subscribers who formed the company. Out of these seven subscribers, six contributes more than eighty percent of the share holding. ( 4 ) ELABORATING further, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 defines government Company which mean any company in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any State Government or governments and since the Central Government being in control of more than 51% shares of the company and by virtue of the respondent company being a Public Financial Institution, it is definitely an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. He also pointed out that in view of clause 94 of the articles of Association, no business can be transacted at any general meeting or any adjournment thereof unless a quorum of share holders representing at least 50% of the voting right in the company is present at the time when the meeting proceeds to business. In case quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned to same day in the following week or the next business day thereafter, and share holder present at such meeting shall constitute the quorum. Since the Central Government has majority of shareholders [ 51% ] no business can be transacted without the representation of the Central Government at any General Meeting. ( 5 ) IT has also been vehemently argued that the admission by the respondents that the respondent-company is a Public Financial institution under Section 4a of the Companies Act together with the very object with which the Company was created, it cannot be disputed that the respondent company is not a Government company. The functions entrusted to the respondent-company in terms of it being a Public Financial Institution clearly demonstrate that the Central Government operated from behind the corporate veil of the company carrying functions of the "state". ( 6 ) SRI R. N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-company while rebutting the contentions advanced by the petitioners Counsel stated that the respondent-company is managed by its Board of Directors represented by nominees of the shareholders. ( 6 ) SRI R. N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-company while rebutting the contentions advanced by the petitioners Counsel stated that the respondent-company is managed by its Board of Directors represented by nominees of the shareholders. The Government is only one of the share holders of the opposite party no. 1 with no additional powers other than those available to its other shareholders. The inclusion of the name of the opposite party no. 1 in the list of Public Financial Institution by notification under Section 4a of the Companies would not make the company a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to learned Counsel, it is wholly incorrect to say that the share holding of the Government of India is fifty one percent. In support of this contention, a chart showing share holding pattern of the respondent-company has been annexed as annexure CA-1. In this Annexure, the share-holding of the government of India has been shown as 20%. Industrial Finance corporation, Housing Development Corporation, Reserve Bank of india, State Bank of India, have also shareholding of 2%, 3%, 15% and 6% respectively. In this chart some foreign companies [nine in numbers] have also been shown to be share-holders of the respondent-company. The constitution of the Board of Directors, which comprises of 15 Directors, also establishes that the government of India does not have any control on the affairs of the respondent Company. The Government of India is entitled to a representation through two directors being the Sponsors of the company. Sri R. N. Trivedi further stated that it is also incorrect to say that quorum cannot be constituted without the representation of the Central Government. As a matter of fact, Article 94 lays down the requirement of quorum and the business can be constituted even without the presence of the Central Government, as its shareholding is less than 50% in the respondent company. As regard the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-company is a public financial institution within the meaning of section 4a (2) (II) and is a Government Company within the definition of section 617 of the Companies Act,. 1956, Sri R. N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate has pointed that initially the respondent-company was not the Public Financial Institution and it was on 31. 10. 1956, Sri R. N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate has pointed that initially the respondent-company was not the Public Financial Institution and it was on 31. 10. 1998 that it was declared as Public Financial Institution under section 4a of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, a company registered under any Central Act (including Companies Act) or an institution in which 51% of the paid up share capital is held by the central Government can be specified as Public Financial Institution under Section 4a (2 ). The respondent company has been specified as Public Financial Institution being a company registered under companies Act and does not fall in the latter category as defined in section 4a (2 ). ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-company has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court given in P. B. Ghayalod versus Maruti Udyog Limited (1994) 79 company Cases 96 (DB) wherein the Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable against Maruti Udyog even when the government of India had majority shareholding of 60% as it had no all pervasive control and did not enjoy a monopoly status and hence the respondent company was not an instrumentality of the "state". In short, the facts of above case are that Maruti Udyog limited is a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated in November, 1981 and became a "deemed public company" under Section 43a (1) of the companies Act. The equity participation between the Government of India and the Suzuki Motor Company is in the ratio of 60:40. The Company is managed by a Chairman, under the superintendence and control of a board of directors, who are appointed by the Central Government and are removable by it. The petitioner, when was terminated, filed a writ petition before Delhi high Court in which a preliminary question was raised that Maruti udyog Limited is a private Limited company and is a joint venture company of the Government of India and Suzuki Motor company, Japan. The petitioner, when was terminated, filed a writ petition before Delhi high Court in which a preliminary question was raised that Maruti udyog Limited is a private Limited company and is a joint venture company of the Government of India and Suzuki Motor company, Japan. The Delhi High Court after considering the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 , Ramana Dayaram Shetty versus International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and the observations made by the Kerala High Court in K. M. Thomas Versus cochin Regineries Limited AIR 1982 held that Maruti Udyog Limited is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. We are in total agreement with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case of Maruti Udyog Limited. ( 9 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in the recent decision i. e. Pradeep kumar Biswas versus Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)5 SCC 111 after considering proposition of law laid down in Ajay Hasai, [supra], B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute; (1983)4scc 582, central Indland Water Transport Corpon Limited v. Brojo Nath ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 , Tekraj Vasandi versus Union of India; (1988)1 SCC 236 , Mysore Paper Mills Limited versus Mysore Paper mills Officers Association; (2002)2 SCC 167 and several other cases summed up as under:"the picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be _ whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. " ( 10 ) RELYING upon the decision in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd Vs. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. " ( 10 ) RELYING upon the decision in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association and another (2002) 2 SCC 167 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this case is fully applicable in the present case as the respondent-company enjoys the similar status and functions which are /were being performed by Mysore Papr Mlls Ltd. We have gone through this case. Mysore paper Mills was declared an instrumentality and agency of the state Government because the 97% of the share capital has been contributed by the State Government, out of 12 directors 5 were government and departmental persons, elected directors are to be nominated with the concurrence of the Government. In the present case, the Government has no deep and pervasive control over the respondent-company. The share holding of Government of India is 20% and the Government of India do not have any additional powers other than those available to its other share holders. ( 11 ) IN Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas (2003)10 SCC 733 , the Honble Supreme Court following the principles laid down in the cases referred to above, held as under:-"in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We do not find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. " ( 12 ) IN G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute [2003] 4 SCC 225 the question before the Honble Supreme Court was that whether ICRI [international Crops Research Institutee] is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The honble Supreme Court while answering the question in negative held as under:" A writ under Article 226 can lie against a" person" if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty. ICRISAT has not bee set up by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled. Although, it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be said that such functions are similar to or closely relate to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity. The primary activity of ICRISAT is to conduct research and training programmes in the sphere of agriculture purely on a voluntary basis. A service voluntarily undertaken cannot be said to be a public duty. " ( 13 ) INSTEAD of multiplying reference to several authorities of decided case, in view of the foregoing discussions and the proposition of law laid down, referred to above, we are of the considered view that in absence of any statutory provision, the respondent company engaged in commercial activities and providing financial assistance to any person engaged in infrastructure, acting on its own behalf, even though the government is a major shareholder, there is no material to show that the Government of India has deep, exclusive or unusual control over the management. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the infrastructure Development and Finance Company Limited not being an authority within the meaning of Article 12, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable. .