JUDGMENT Honble Arun Tandon, J.—This bunch of writ petitions has been filed basically for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of Uttar Pradesh to grant ‘No Objection Certificate/affiliation to the petitioners institution for starting Two Years Basic Training Course, as also for quashing the order of the State Government dated 6th September, 2004 and the orders issued in respect of individual institutions of various dates based on the said Government Order dated 6th September, 2004. The State Government has taken a decision that Two Years Basic Training Course shall be permitted to be run in Government institutions only and permission for the said course shall not be granted to any private institutions. 2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are institutions, which have been granted recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education for starting B.Ed. Course. The said institutions are also affiliated to various State Universities situate in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Universities are the examining bodies in respect of these private and unaided recognised degree colleges, where B.Ed. Course is being taught. 3. Since the basic facts, relevant for decision of the disputes qua the aforesaid writ petitions are more or less identical, and legal aspects involved are also identical. Writ Petitions are being decided by this common judgement. The facts recorded in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39124 of 2005 are being stated for the purposes of present judgement treating the same to be the leading case. 4. Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Sri P.S. Baghel and Sri J.P.N. Singh, Sri Anurag Khanna, Sri S.D. Shukla, Sri D.C. Mishra, Sri Yatindra, Sri Anurag Jauhari, Advocates on behalf of petitioners, Sri Rajeev Joshi, Advocate on behalf of National Council for Teachers Education, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General, Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents. The records have also been examined. 5. For planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country, the Parliament framed the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “NCTE Act"). The records have also been examined. 5. For planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country, the Parliament framed the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “NCTE Act"). In accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, every institution imparting education for teacher’s training for primary, secondary and Higher education is entitled to run such course, only after it has received approval/recognition from the National Council for Teachers Education. The requirement of the infrastructure, faculty members along with minimum qualifications prescribed, and the intake permitted for such institutions, has been regulated under the provisions of the Act and Regulations framed thereunder. 6. The Country is committed to “Education for All”. The Government of India has launched the “Serva Shiksha Abhiyan and the State Government is committed under the constitution to ensure that primary education to the students upto age of 14 years is provided free. Such commitment to primary education cannot be fulfilled unless there are requisite number of trained qualified teachers available for the institution imparting education at that level. 7. At this stage reference may be had to the functions of National Council for Teachers Education, as contained in Chapter-Ill of the NCTE Act. It is the duty of the National Council for Teachers Education to take all steps, as it may think proper for ensuring the planned and coordinated development for determination and maintenance of norms and the standard in teacher education system. For the said purpose detail functions have been assigned to the National Council for Teachers Education. 8. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are 70 District Institutes of Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DIET’) run by the State Government. Such District Institutes of Education and Training impart training for Basic Training Course with an intake capacity, which according to the parties is nearly 200 candidates for each District Institute of Education and Training. Duration of the Basic Training Course is two years. Such District Institutes of Education and Training impart training for Basic Training Course with an intake capacity, which according to the parties is nearly 200 candidates for each District Institute of Education and Training. Duration of the Basic Training Course is two years. According to the statement made on behalf of State-respondents, at present there are existing vacancies of nearly one lac trained teachers at the primary level qua the institutions established and managed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad as also thereto for the large number of private institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh granted recognition at Junior High School Level where education from Class-VI to Class-VIII is imparted. The annual intake of students in all District Institutes of Education and Training established by the State Government is 14000 per year only. 9. On the planned estimated, there are 2,75,000 sanctioned posts of trained teachers in Primary School and 63,000 sanctioned posts of trained teachers in Junior High School, while 2,36,000+61,000 trained teachers are working in Primary and Junior High School respectively, therefore, 39,000+2,000 posts of trained teachers are lying vacant. There are 1,17,000 sanctioned posts of Shiksha Mitra while 90,000 Shiksha Mitras are working through the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, 27,000 posts of Shiksha Mitras are lying vacant. Further nearly 10000 teachers of primary institutions are expected to retire every year. 10. It will at least take more than 10 years to wipe out these vacancies by providing requisite number of trained teachers for primary education with the help sanctioned posts as are available in the District Institutes of Education and Training as of date. This period of ten years does not take into consideration the number of new institutions which are to be established and granted recognition/as well as primary institutions which are run in the private sector in the State of Uttar Pradesh without the approval of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. 11. It is needless to emphasise that under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, one of the essential qualifications prescribed for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognised institution including the institution run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. is Certificate of Basic Training Course. 12. 11. It is needless to emphasise that under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, one of the essential qualifications prescribed for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognised institution including the institution run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. is Certificate of Basic Training Course. 12. Although the aforesaid Rules may not be applicable to non-recognised primary institution, still to maintain the uniformity of level of education in respect of primary education, in the State, qualified teachers possessed of Basic Training Course must be available to these unrecognised institutions also. 13. It is in this background that every year the State of Uttar Pradesh initiates Special Basic Training Course, with the prior permission of the National Council for Teachers Education. 14. The National Council for Teachers Education being aware of the aforesaid prevailing circumstances issued a public notice dated 14th September, 2003 inviting applications from institutions like the petitioners institutions, which have already been granted affiliation/recognition for B.Ed. Course, for being granted recognition for starting Primary Elementary Training Teachers’ Facilities also. A copy of the public notice so published by the National Council for Teachers Education has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 15. Under the notice so published and according to the existing Rules and Regulations applicable, No Objection Certificate was required to be obtained from the State Government concerned, before making an application to the National Council for Teachers Education in response to the said course. 16. Petitioners accordingly submitted an application for grant of No Objection Certificate to the State Government for being permitted to apply for recognition for imparting education in respect of Basic Training Course. 17. Some of the petitioners approached this Court, while their applications were still pending. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, U.P. Lucknow, by means of his letter dated 6th September, 2004, came out with a policy decision that permission to start Basic Training Course shall not be granted to private institutions, inasmuch as District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) run by the State Government in each District of the State of Uttar Pradesh were sufficient to take care of the number of teachers required for primary institutions in the State, it was noticed that intake in such District Institutes of Education and Training has been increased to 200 students each with the approval of the National Council for Teachers Education. The State Government also pointed out that there is no requirement of more institutions in respect of Basic Training Course. Establishment of new institutions would only result in unemployed trained teachers being available in the State. This order of the State Government along with orders issued on individual applications rejecting the prayer for grant of No Objection Certificate on the same ground are subject matter of challenge in all these writ petitions. 18. It appears that information of the decision of the State Government so arrived at was also brought to the knowledge of the National Council for Teachers Education. In order to overcome the difficulty of obtaining No Objection Certificate from the State Government and Union Territory, as was earlier necessary, Regulation-6 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act (form of application for recognition, time limit for submission of application, determination of norms, as standard for recognition of teachers education programme and permission to start new courses of training) Regulations notified on 14th September, 2002 was substituted vide Notification dated 1st January, 2004. It is worthwhile to reproduce the reasons stated for such relaxation under the notification dated 1st January, 2004, which reads as follows : “F.No. 53-3/2003-NCTE (N&S)— As the country is committed to Education for All under the Dekar Framework of action by the World Education forum, the Government of India has launched the “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan” to attain universalization of primary education by 2007 and universalization of elementary education by 2010. To attain this objective, there is a requirement of huge number of additional teachers level during the 10th Plan period. To overcome the shortage of trained teachers, there is a need to liberalize the policies relating to setting up of institutions for Elementary Teacher Education programme and for preparing teachers for Early Childhood Care and Education/Pre-school Teacher Education/Nursery Teacher Education. In order to facilitate establishment of adequate number of teacher training institutions at these levels, the National Council for Teacher Education has decided to dispense with the requirement of “No Objection Certificate (NOC)” from State/UT Government for a period of three years for those institutions already running B.Ed. Programmes recognised by NCTE and to such other institutions keen to start a course or training in Pre-School Teacher Education/Nursery Teacher Education.” 19. Programmes recognised by NCTE and to such other institutions keen to start a course or training in Pre-School Teacher Education/Nursery Teacher Education.” 19. With the change in the legal provisions applicable, the Northern Regional Committee (for short NRC) of National Council for Teachers Education, Jaipur after inspection of the petitioners institutions vide letter dated 23rd April, 2004 granted recognition, with annual intake of 50 students only in first year and of the same number in the second year of Basic Training Course of two years duration w.e.f. Academic session 2004-05 subject to the conditions mentioned in the said letter. Copy of the letter dated 13th April, 2004 is enclosed as Annexure to the writ petition. 20. Even after the recognition so granted, the petitioners institutions were still obliged to obtain affiliation from the Examining Body under Section 14 (6) of the Act which reads as follows : “14. Recognition of Institutions offering Course or Training in Teacher Education : (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations : Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2)........ (3)........ (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) ..... (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),— (a) grant of affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.” 21. (5) ..... (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),— (a) grant of affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.” 21. In the aforesaid legal background, the petitioner institutions now seek affiliation from the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the SCERT), which is the examining body in respect of Basic Training Course. The relief so prayed for would also necessarily include allotment of students by the State Government for admission to the Basic Training Course to the petitioners institutions. 22. In order to keep the records state, it may be recorded that while the writ petitions were being heard by this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, JT 2006 (4) SC 201, held that the final authority with regard to the teachers education is the National Council for Teachers Education. It decision has to be accepted and acted upon by all other authorities concerned. 23. This Court under order dated 14th July, 2006 required the State Government to take fresh decision in the matter in light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above. The Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow vide order dated 21st November, 2006 has stated that it is not possible to grant affiliation to the petitioner institutions run in the private sector for the Basic Training Course as per the policy decision of the Government. Various short comings in respect of individual institution have also been stated for the purposes of justifying refusal of affiliation by the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow. The order of the Secretary dated 21st November, 2006 also retreats the decision of the State Government to not to permit the training of teachers for primary education through Private Institutions. 24. In the aforesaid background, following three issues crop up for consideration before this Court : (a) Whether the National Council for Teachers Education has competence to grant recognition for starting courses for education of primary teachers to private institution, even if No Objection Certificate has not been obtained from the State Government/Union Territory? 24. In the aforesaid background, following three issues crop up for consideration before this Court : (a) Whether the National Council for Teachers Education has competence to grant recognition for starting courses for education of primary teachers to private institution, even if No Objection Certificate has not been obtained from the State Government/Union Territory? (b) Whether the State Government or its Subordinate Authorities (Examining Body) can refuse to grant affiliation to such institutions in respect of primary education courses as a policy decision, once recognition for the course has been granted by National Council for Teachers Education? (c) Whether the State Government in the facts of the individual institutions can refuse affiliation, as an examining body, on certain norms/conditions not being fulfilled by individual institutions? Issue No. (a) : 25. So far as the first issue is concerned, the same may not detain the Court for long. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) has dealt in detail, with the intent and all prevailing authority of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, the jurisdiction exercised by the Bodies constituted under the said Act. Suffice is to reproduce the following paragraphs of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India : “48. ln the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted 1993 Act, which is in force. The Preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object, National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on ‘policy consideration’. ............................................. 57. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on ‘policy consideration’. ............................................. 57. It is thus clear that the Central Government has considered the subject of secondary education and higher education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider Teacher Education System ‘throughout the country’. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and coordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the State Government nor to a University to consider the local conditions or apply ‘State Policy’ to refuse such permission. In fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to hereinabove. State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule the decision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly be set aside by the High Court.” 27. From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the National Council for Teachers Education is the best judge for planned and coordinated developments of teachers education/training throughout the country including the requirement of the infrastructure, qualifications of the faculty members, intake of number of students to be permitted for each course as well as for the curriculum to be prescribed for the course concerned. 28. From the records of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that provision for obtaining of No Objection Certificate from the State Government/Union Territory as required earlier under Regulation-6 of the Regulations framed under the National Council for Teachers Education Act has been relaxed for the period of 3 (three) years i.e. for the period 2004-2007 under the amendment Notification of the National Council for Teachers Education dated 1st January, 2004. The reasons whereof have already been quoted herein above. 29. It may be stated that competence of the National Council for Teachers Education to issue the notification dated 1st January, 2004, which exempts obtaining of No Objection Certificate by Existing B.Ed. Institutions, has not been questioned by any of the State-respondents. 30. The reasons whereof have already been quoted herein above. 29. It may be stated that competence of the National Council for Teachers Education to issue the notification dated 1st January, 2004, which exempts obtaining of No Objection Certificate by Existing B.Ed. Institutions, has not been questioned by any of the State-respondents. 30. This Court, therefore, records that it is not necessary for the petitioner institution as well as other institutions, which have already been granted recognition for B.Ed. Course by NCTE, to obtain, No Objection Certificate from the State of Uttar Pradesh, before they can move applications for grant of recognition for starting elementary education programme including the Basic Training Course and to that extent the recognition granted by the National Council for Teachers Education under Section 14 (4) of the Act to the petitioners institution is in strict conformity with law and all instrumentalities of the State and its Officers are required to accept the same and to take all consequential actions. The first issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. (b): 31. So far as the second issue is concerned, under sub-section (6) of Section-14 of the National Council for Teachers Education, once the institutions have been granted recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education, on fulfilment of essential conditions for starting the elementary teachers education programme, the examination body is legally obliged to affiliated the institution concerned. 32. Language of Section 14 (6) speaks of no exception and there cannot be a policy decision of the State Government to refuse affiliation for starting the Basic Training Course by the private institutions, which have been granted such recognition under Section 14 (4) of the Act by National Council for Teachers Education. Such policy decision of the State Government, as contained in the letter of the Principal Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 6th September, 2004 and again retreated under the letter of the Secretary Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow dated 21st November, 2006 is declared to be inoperative in the eyes of law being contrary to the statutory rules. 33. It is settled law that no policy decision of the State Government can run contrary to the Statutory Provisions of an Act. The Parliament has specifically framed National Council for Teachers Education Act, in respect of subject covered by Entry-66 of the List-Ill (concurrent list) of the Constitution of India. 33. It is settled law that no policy decision of the State Government can run contrary to the Statutory Provisions of an Act. The Parliament has specifically framed National Council for Teachers Education Act, in respect of subject covered by Entry-66 of the List-Ill (concurrent list) of the Constitution of India. The policy decision of the State Government must necessarily give away to the Statutory provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. Accordingly it is held that the State Government/its Institutions, cannot refuse affiliation to the petitioners institutions, which have been granted recognition for starting Basic Training Course by the National Council for Teachers Education under Section 14 (4). Such institutions are legally entitled to affiliation by the Examining Body. 34. The grant of affiliation by the Examining Body like State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow (instrumentality of the State) would necessarily result in requisite number of students, within the permissible intake being allotted by the State Government to the said private institutions, and after the said students are admitted to the training course of two years, the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow will be obliged to hold their examinations after the course is completed. If the student is successful, necessary teaching certificate is to be issued in their favour. Issue No. (c): 35. So far as the last issue before this Court is concerned, various factual aspects of the matter have been stated in the order of the Secretary for the purposes of refusing affiliation to the private individual institution, by the examining body, this Court may record that although under Section 14 (6) of the National Council for Teachers Education Act grant of affiliation by the Examining Body is a necessary corollary to the recognition granted under Section 14 (4), for the particular training course by the National Council for Teachers Education to an institution, it is not expected that the Examining Body is act as an Post-Office, meaning thereby that once recognition is granted by the National Council for Teachers Education, the Examining Body, namely, the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow has to grant affiliation in every case without any actual verification of the essential requirements being fulfilled by the institution. The Affiliating Examining Body has to satisfy itself that essential requirements of the Act/Regulation and Conditions for recognition imposed by the National Council for Teachers Education infact stand satisfied by the individual institutions in question. For the purpose, spot inspection of the institutions/examination of records etc. has to done. There is no automatic affiliation by Examining Body contemplated by the National Council for Teachers Education Act. This conclusion of the Court is supported from the conditions mentioned in letter of the National Council for Teachers Education dated 13th April, 2004 granting recognition to the petitioner institutions for the course, the relevant condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4 reads as follows : “2......... (a) Appointment of the faculty members duly qualified and staff as per the norms of NCTE/State Govt./concerned body is to be completed before the commencement of the session. (b) ........ (c) The institution shall adhere to all the other Regulations and Guidelines as framed by NCTE from time to time. (d) The institution shall within ONE MONTH of the receipt of recognition order, convent the Endowment Fund account into a joint account in the form of FDR for a period of not less than SIXTY MONTHS (Five Years) in a National Bank only (and not any other certificate) to be operated along with an official of the Regional Committee. (e) ..... (f) Non-compliance of above conditions as mentioned vide this Order of Recognition shall invite action under Section 17 (1) of NCTE Act, 1993. 3. The Recognition is subject to the condition that the affiliating body shall ensure that, among other things, the institution has appointed required number of faculty members (including Principal/Head of Department), as per the norms of the NCTE/UGC/Concerned Affiliating Body. 4. Further, the recognition is subject to fulfilment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like concerned body and State Government, etc.” 36. In the same letter of recognition the endorsement made at item No. 4 to the Examining Body/the State of Uttar Pradesh reads as follows : “4. The Director, S.C.E.R.T., Nishant Ganj, Lucknow, U.P.-to ensure compliance of the clause 3 of the recognition order. In case the institution is not found to have completed with the said requirements; the concerned department shall withhold the affiliation and report the same to NRC, NCTE.” 37. The Director, S.C.E.R.T., Nishant Ganj, Lucknow, U.P.-to ensure compliance of the clause 3 of the recognition order. In case the institution is not found to have completed with the said requirements; the concerned department shall withhold the affiliation and report the same to NRC, NCTE.” 37. From the aforesaid clauses of the letter of affiliation itself, it necessarily follows that the State Council of Educational Research Training, Lucknow has to examine and has to satisfy itself that the requirements/conditions imposed in the recognition letter have been fulfilled by the institution before the affiliation infact is granted in favour of institutions in respect of examination concerned, in case the requirements are not fulfilled, the Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow is entitled to withhold the affiliation and report the same to the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, Jaipur. 38. Accordingly the Examining Body i.e. State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow, on being satisfied that essential conditions prescribed under order of the recognition/other conditions prescribed by the regulatory bodies including State Government have not been fulfilled by the institution concerned can withhold affiliation and the decision so taken by the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow has to be reported to the National Council for Teachers Education. 39. In such a case, two consequences follow logically, (a) there has to be an order in writing of the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow, justifying the withholding of affiliation of the institution in respect of examination or course concerned, (b) the order must necessarily be communicated to the National Council for Teachers Education. Communication of the order of the Examining Body to the National Council for Teachers Education would afford an opportunity to the institution concerned to furnish explanation to the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, Jaipur qua the reasons assigned for withholding the affiliation being not correct/true. On such explanation being furnished the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, Jaipur can re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order or it may direct the institution to remove the deficiencies if any, in a time bound manner or else it can revoke the recognition itself. On such explanation being furnished the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, Jaipur can re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order or it may direct the institution to remove the deficiencies if any, in a time bound manner or else it can revoke the recognition itself. This Court may record that withholding of affiliation can be for non-fulfilment of norms as per the letter of recognition issued by the National Council for Teachers Education dated 13th April, 2004 or for non-fulfilment of norms fixed by the State Government/Regulatory Authority. 40. At this stage this Court may record that the stand taken in the affidavit brought on record before this Court by the State Government to the effect that there is no requirement of additional trained teachers, possessed of Basic Training Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh vis-a-vis number of teachers, which become available from 70 District Institutes of Education and Training as per paragraph Nos. 8 and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of State-respondents, which read as follows : “8. That 70 District Institutes of Education and Training are running in the State to conduct the training of B.T.C. Course with the present intake capacity of 9400 which is to be increased to 1400 after the approval of N.C.T.E. to all the District Institute’s of Education and Training with 200 intake capacity in each DIET while the number of teachers retiring per year is about 10000 and also after raising the superannuating age to 62 years from 60 years, there is no retirement of Assistant Teachers in the year 2004-05 and in the year 2005-06 and thus there is comfortable match between the need and the availability of the man power. ............................................ 12. That the State Government does not require extra teachers other than the teachers available from DIETs.” is totally incorrect and unacceptable for two reasons : (a) number of existing vacancies in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the recognised institutions and in the institutions run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad is nearly one lakh. The District Institutes of Education and Training with annual intake of 14000/ candidates per year will take decades to wipe out the vacancies. Such conclusion is further fortified from the fact that every year nearly 10,000 teachers already working would retire. The District Institutes of Education and Training with annual intake of 14000/ candidates per year will take decades to wipe out the vacancies. Such conclusion is further fortified from the fact that every year nearly 10,000 teachers already working would retire. State of Uttar Pradesh has been initiating Special Basic Training Course every year in order to overcome the paucity of trained Teachers for appointment in recognised institution as well as institution established by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, wherein Statutory minimum qualifications prescribed is Basic Training Course. This includes the number of Shiksha Mitras to be appointed every year in the State. (b) trained teachers being available in the State of Uttar Pradesh would necessarily result in their appointments in the institutions imparting education from Class-I to Class-V, though not recognised by the Basic Education Board. The Court fails to see any justification as to why such private unrecognised institutions be deprived of availability of trained teachers by the State on the pretext that for recognised institution and institutions established by the Basic Education Board, the number of teachers provided by the District Institutes of Education and Training each year is sufficient to cater for their needs." 41. In any civilized country a qualified unemployed youth is much better than a non-qualified unemployed youth. The State Government is, therefore, not justified in the stand so taken. The State and its Officers have only shown unawareness to the need of qualified teachers for primary education in the institutions both established/aided by the State Government as well as those run privately without aid/recognition. Qualified youth is an asset for the country and there should be no attempt on part of the State to obstruct achievement of qualification on the plea that the number of unemployed qualified youth would increase in the State. Such an argument defeats the very purpose for which education is imparted, and which is the backbone of any civilized country. 42. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusions arrived at, it is directed that the State Council of Educational Research Training, Lucknow shall individually re-examine the institutions, which have been granted recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education for Basic Training Course and in case certain requirements, as per the norms/ law of the recognition are still wanted, appropriate orders for removing the deficiencies in a time bound manner be issued. If even thereafter the deficiencies are removed, it may withhold the affiliation and communicate the order in that regard to the National Council for Teachers Education within reasonable time, so that the interest of the institution is not jeopardized unnecessarily. The aforesaid exercise may be completed by the State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow. In case essential conditions stand satisfied, the State Council of Educational Research Training, Lucknow shall grant necessary affiliation to the individual institution concerned and then the State Government shall also ensure that necessary number of students within the permitted intake are allotted to the institution for admission in the course. In case the affiliation is refused, the petitioner institutions, who in turn will be at liberty to approach the National Council for Teachers Education or to challenge the orders of State Council of Educational Research & Training, Lucknow, before appropriate authority, as may be permissible under law. 43. In view of the aforesaid all the writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made above. ——— [2007(5) ADJ 180] ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ......Respondents (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 43. In view of the aforesaid all the writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made above. ——— [2007(5) ADJ 180] ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ......Respondents (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 21772 and 56026 of 2006, decided on 4th May, 2007) Termination—Of Services of petitioners, i.e. Marketing Personnels—Entire assets of O.C.F.L. (a Company) agreed to be sold to S.B.I.P.P.L. (another Company)—All employees of respondent 8, who were taken by S.B.I.P.P.L., except Marketing Personnels ultimately became employees of K.S.F.L. (i.e., a new Co.) which was incorporated, being a Joint Venture of S.B.I.P.P.L. and K.R.I.B.H.C.O. and are in service—However, petitioners, who were employees of Marketing section their services have been dispensed with by their original employer O.C.F.L. (respondent 8) by means of impugned orders of termination—Hence, writ petitions—Question whether KRIBHCO, is a State, within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution—Dispute involved in writ petitions is purely a breach of contract, if any, by a private employer—And against such actions, no writ under Article 226 of Constitution would be maintainable—But, petitioners may have common law remedy, as available to them—Held, petitions based on violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution fails—If respondent-4 does not answer description of “State” under Article 12 of Constitution, Articles 12 and 21 would have no application—In case of breach of contract of employment, remedy of specific performance would not lie, unless it is shown that employees are entitled to reinstatement under some statutory provisions, etc.—Therefore, remedy of petitioners, would lie in common law—And not under Article 226 of Constitution—Hence, petitions liable to be dismissed. [Constitution of India—Articles 12 and 21—Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002—Sections 38, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 61, 72 and 122]. [Paras 31, 33, 34 and 36] Result; Petition Dismissed. [Constitution of India—Articles 12 and 21—Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002—Sections 38, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 61, 72 and 122]. [Paras 31, 33, 34 and 36] Result; Petition Dismissed. Cases cited : (2006) 3 ADJ 383 (All) (Para 6); AIR 1967 SC 1857 ; AIR 1975 SC 1331 ; AIR 1979 SC 1628 (Para 21); AIR 1981 SC 487 (Para 21); (2002) 5 SCC 111 (Para 24); (2003) 8 SCC 639 (Para 25); AIR 2003 SC 4325 (Para 26); (2003) 4 SCC 225 (Para 27); (2005) 4 SCC 649 (Para 28); (1983) 3 SCC 379 ; (1987) 1 SCC 395 ; AIR 1989 SC 1607 ; (1999) 1 SCC 741 ; (2004) 5 SCC 90 ; (2005) 1 SCC 149 (Para 32); AIR 1966 SC 8; (1976) 2 SCC 82 ; (2004) 3 SCC 553 (Para 34); AIR 1970 SC 1244 ; AIR 1976 SC 888 ; AIR 1981 SC 122 ; (2004) 3 SCC 172 (Para 35)-Referred. Counsel : Dr. L.P. Misra, Sharad Pandey and Ajay Kumar Singh for the Petitioners; B.P. Jauhari for the Respondents. JUDGMENT Honble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—In these writ petitions the questions of law and fact involved are common and, therefore, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 35 petitioners in writ petition No. 21772 of 2006 have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioners have been terminated by respondent No. 8. Further a writ of certiorari has been sought against the condition mentioned at item No. 5.1.2 of the agreement dated 3.11.2005 contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. It provides that marketing personnel of respondent No. 8 shall not be absorbed. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing respondents No. 1 to 5 to allow the petitioner to continue as Marketing Personnel and to pay their salary with effect from the date, persons junior to the petitioners, mentioned in Table I in para 25 of the writ petition have been retained in service. In writ petition No. 56026 of 2006 there are four petitioners. Reliefs sought are similar as referred above. 2. In writ petition No. 56026 of 2006 there are four petitioners. Reliefs sought are similar as referred above. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to these writ petitions are narrated as under : Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (hereinafter referred to as OCFL) having its registered office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and fertilizers. The petitioners were appointed as Marketing Officers of the company. There is another company named M/s Shyam Basic Infrastructures Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SBIPPL). An agreement was executed between OCFL and SBIPPL on 3.11.2005 wherein the entire assets of OCFL agreed to be sold to SBIPPL for a consideration of Rs. 1100 Crores. The purchasing company vide clause 5.1.2 of the agreement also agreed to take over all the employees of OCFL on terms not less favourable than those they currently enjoyed except Marketing Personnel. Thereafter it appears that another company Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Limited (hereinafter referred to as KSFL) was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 vide registration certificate of incorporation dated 8.12.2005 issued by the Registrar of Companies and N.C.T. of Delhi and Haryana. The said new company was incorporated being a joint venture of SBIPPL and M/s Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited (hereinafter referred to as KRIBHCO) as per the object stated in Memo of Association, it was incorporated to acquire the assets of Shahjahanpur unit of OCFL. An agreement dated 23.12.2005 was executed between SBIPPL and KSFL whereby Shahjahanpur plant was sold to KSFL. All the employees of respondent No. 8 who were taken by SBIPPL except the Marketing Personnel, ultimately became the employees of KSFL and are in service. However, the petitioners who were the employees in Marketing Section, their services have been dispensed with by their original employer OCFL, respondent No. 8 by means of the impugned orders of termination whereagainst these writ petitions have been filed. 3. Dr. L.P. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Pandey and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioners in these cases. 3. Dr. L.P. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Pandey and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioners in these cases. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that KRIBHCO is an instrumentality of the Government and SBIPPL worked as an agent of KRIBHCO for purchase of OCFL as is evident from agreement dated 3.11.2005 where in the definition clause 1.1.6 it is mentioned that party or parties means as the context may require Shyam or KRIBHCO or both. It is, therefore, submitted that in effect transfer of the assets of the company from OCFL to SBIPPL and thereafter to KSFL is nothing but for all practical purposes is a transfer under the direct control of KRIBHCO which is an instrumentality of the State. Being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution it is incumbent upon it not to act arbitrarily and cause discrimination. However, acting illegally, in the agreement dated 3.11.2005, it provided in clause 5.1.2 for transfer of all other employees of OCFL except Marketing Personnel which is arbitrary and discriminatory and even otherwise unconscionable. It is further contended that Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India cast a duty upon the State and its instrumentality to eradicate poverty and provide employment and ensure improvement of working condition of the citizens of the country. Hence, KRIBHCO acting in a fraudulent manner by indirectly purchasing respondent No. 1 has rendered the petitioners unemployed which is illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 4. Respondent No. 4 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that KRIBHCO was initially registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and thereafter registered as Multi State Cooperative Society under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and now governed by the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "2002 Act"). The object of KRIBHCO is to promote the economic interest of its members by undertaking manufacture of chemical fertilizers and other allied products which are conducive and incidental thereto. The membership of KRIBHCO is open to various cooperative societies which are primarily engaged in development of agriculture. Since the society is now governed by the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, the bye-laws have been amended and the presently applicable to KRIBHCO are the amended certified bye-laws dated 28.12.2004. The membership of KRIBHCO is open to various cooperative societies which are primarily engaged in development of agriculture. Since the society is now governed by the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, the bye-laws have been amended and the presently applicable to KRIBHCO are the amended certified bye-laws dated 28.12.2004. There is no pervasive control of Government over KRIBHCO and neither it carries out the essential public duty and function or duties closely related to governmental functions nor even otherwise, it is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India or State and, therefore, it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has also denied that SBIPPL acted as an agent of KRIBHCO. It is said that KRIBHCO being a separate entity, as a joint venture, floated the company namely, KSFL wherein KRIBHCO and SBIPPL both have their share and control in the manner provided in the Articles of Association and the said joint venture has resulted in birth of a separate independent entity KSFL. The said KSFL has entered into an agreement on 23.12.2005 with SBIPPL in respect to Shahjahanpur unit of the company, and it is totally a private and separate arrangement. 5. On behalf of respondent No. 5 also a counter-affidavit has been filed stating that respondent No. 5 is wholly a private company not answering the requirement of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, in respect to its contractual matters, the petitioners who are strangers for all practical purposes to respondent No. 5, have no occasion or cause of action to challenge their contractual breach that too by respondent No. 8 with which it has no concern and even otherwise, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 6. Sri B.P. Jauhari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions urging that the petitioners are employees of a private company and are mainly aggrieved by orders of their termination issued by a private company, i.e., respondent No. 8. It is further contended that even respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot be said to be the authorities or instrumentality of State answering the description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. It is further contended that even respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot be said to be the authorities or instrumentality of State answering the description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jyoti Kumar Malviya v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. Phoolpur Project, Phoolpur and others, 2006(3) ADJ 383 (All). 7. From respective submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioners have set up their case centring around respondent No. 4 by contending since KRIBHCO is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, the writ petitions are maintainable. Therefore, without entering into other aspects of the matter, it would be appropriate first to consider as to whether respondent No. 4, i.e., KRIBHCO can be said to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution for the reason that if it is not so, the basic premise of the entire case set up by the petitioners would fall and the writ petitions would render not maintainable. It is only when it is found that respondent No. 4 is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, then it would be necessary for this Court to consider other questions. 8. As observed earlier, KRIBHCO is a society registered under the provisions of 2002 Act. Therefore, it would be useful to consider 2002 Act and the bye-laws of KRIBHCO to find out whether it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 9. The preamble to the 2002 Act reads : "An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies, with objects not confined to one State and serving the interests of members in more than one State, to facilitate the voluntary formation and democratic functioning of cooperative as peoples institutions based on self help and mutual aid and to enable them to promote their economic and social betterment and to provide functional autonomy and for matters connected therwith or incidental thereto." 10. Section 3(g) of 2002 Act defines the Co-operative Principles to mean those specified in the First Schedule and those relevant for our purpose are : (1) Voluntary and Open Membership.—Cooperatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons capable of using their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without discrimination on basis of gender, social inequality, racial, political ideologies or religious consideration. (2) Democratic Member Control.—Cooperatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and decision making. Elected representative of these cooperatives are responsible and accountable to their members. (3) Members Economic Participation.—Members contribute equally and control the capital of their Co-operative democratically. At least a part of the surplus arising out of the economic results would be the common property of the co-operatives. The remaining surplus could be utilised benefiting the members in proportion to their share in the Cooperative. (4) Autonomy and independence.—Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members. If cooperatives enter into agreement with other organisations including Government or raise capital from external sources they do so on terms that ensure their democratic control by members and maintenance of Cooperative autonomy." 11. Section 5 of 2002 Act provides that no Multi State Cooperative Society shall be registered under the Act unless its main objects are to serve the interests of members in more than one State and its bye-laws provide for social and economic betterment of its members through self help and mutual aid in accordance with the cooperative principles. 12. Section 10 of 2002 Act provides that every Multi State Cooperative Society may make its bye-laws consistent with the provisions of the Act while Section 11 of the Act deals with amendment of bye-laws and provides that they shall be made by a resolution passed by two-third majority of the members present and voting at the general meeting of the society. 13. Bye-laws in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of the 2002 Act have been framed by KRIBHCO and those dealing with its main object are as under : "KRIBHCO shall be a body corporate and shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, enter into contract, institute and defend suit and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose of furthering the interests of the members based on cooperative principles. KRIBHCO shall conduct its operations in a professional and commercial manner to ensure the social and economic development of its members and optimum returns to its members on their contributions in KRIBHCO." OBJECTS (A) The objects of KRIBHCO shall be to promote the economic interest of its members by undertaking the business of manufacture, production, development, processing, conversion, sale, distribution, marketing, import, export, trade or otherwise deal in, store, or transport, build, construct, fabricate or otherwise turn to account, in India and abroad of chemical fertilisers, bio fertilisers, man made fibres, detergents, soaps, chemicals, petro-chemicals, refining, hydrocarbons, drugs and pharmaceuticals, industrial products, cement, steel, electronic products, satellite receivers, pesticides, seeds, agricultural machinery and implements and other agricultural inputs/outputs, agricultural items, agro-based industrial items, food products, aquaculture, forestry products, power generation and distribution from conventional or non-conventional energy sources, automobiles, breweries, housing and real estate, construction and fabrication, and to provide/undertake the business of oil exploration, communication and telecommunication, information technology, shipping, trading, banking and insurance and to undertake such other activities which are conducive and incidental thereto. (B) In furtherance of these objectives, KRIBHCO may undertake one or more of the following activities : (i) to set up, lease, take on hire, acquire plant or plants for manufacture/production/conversion/processing of all or any of the product including their allied products/by-products, and inputs either directly or in collaboration or as a Joint Venture with any other agencies or persons including other cooperative societies, public sector or private sector enterprises; (ii) to undertake production, processing, manufacture, sale, distribution, marketing, import, export and to otherwise deal in agricultural production requisites; (iii) to acquire, establish, construct, provide and maintain and administer factories, townships, estates, railway sidings, build yards, wells, water reservoirs, channels, pumping installations, purification plants, pipe lines, carriages, storage sheds and accommodation of all description; (iv) to manufacture, store, maintain, sell, buy, repair, alter, exchange, let on hire, export, import and deal in all kinds of articles and things which may be required for the purpose of any of the business of KRIBHCO or are commonly supplied or dealt in by persons engaged in any such business or which may seem capable of being profitably dealt in connection with any of the business of KRIBHCO; (v) to act as warehousing agency under the Warehousing Act and own and construct its own godowns or hire godowns for the storage of fertilisers and other goods; (vi) to set up storage units for storing fertilisers and other goods by itself or in collaboration with any other cooperative institution or any other agency; (vii) to maintain transport units of its own or in collaboration with any other organisation in India and abroad for movement of goods by any form or manner of transportation including by land, sea etc; (viii) to acquire, take on lease or hire, buildings, fixtures and vehicles and to sell, give on lease or hire them; (ix) to promote and organise other Cooperative Societies in the fields to which KRIBHCO extends its activities; (x) to subscribe to the shares of Cooperative and other Institutions, and bodies corporate; (xi) to enter into contracts and collaboration for purchase, production, manufacture and marketing, sale and distribution of raw materials, auxiliary products, packing materials, finished products, by-products and other waste products and also enter into joint marketing and products exchange agreements with other Cooperative Institution, Public Sector Undertaking or any other agency or person; (xii) to enter into collaboration with Cooperative or others in India and in foreign countries for machinery and equipment, and for technical know-how, consultancy, designing, engineering, construction, erection, operation and maintenance of fertilisers, chemicals and other Plants; and marketing of the produce of the same; (xiii) to provide technical, consultancy and other services to member societies and other agencies and persons; (xiv) to set up agricultural farms by purchasing, acquiring or taking on lease of land from Government, Institutions and private agencies for research and development of agriculture; (xv) to set up institute for providing training to the farmers and others in the modern and improved agricultural practices, technology and other areas of human resource development; (xvi) to provide and arrange for the training of employees of the Cooperative Societies, to promote and develop the sales of fertiliser, other agricultural production requisites and other activities in which KRIBHCO is interested; (xvii) to take up such other activities which are incidental and conducive to the agriculture and rural development; (xviii) to establish branch offices and sales depots in India and abroad; (xix) to carry on agency business of every kind and description connected with the business of KRIBHCO; (xx) to undertake research and such other activities as are incidental and conducive to the development of the industry as well as KRIBHCO; (xxi) to undertake production and/or processing of agricultural items including mushroom, and agro-based industrial items and food products including sugar, fruit and vegetable processing, starch products, and fibre board, molasses based products; (xxii) to set up forestry; (xxiii) to undertake Bio-technology based industries; (xxiv) to acquire real estates in rural and urban areas and also promote cooperative housing for employees and members; (xxv) to promote subsidiary institutions for the purpose of furthering the objects of KRIBHCO; and (xxvi) to undertake such other activities as are conducive or incidental to the attainment of main objects of KRIBHCO; (C) KRIBHCO shall take all steps necessary to : (i) conduct its affairs with Professional Management; (ii) Solicit participation of the Cooperative Societies in terms of contribution to equity and participation in the Business; (iii) Give effect to the provisions in letter and in spirit of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to ensure democratic functioning of the society, economic betterment of members and for greater functional autonomy. MEMBERSHIP (A) No individual shall be eligible for membership of KRIBHCO. The Membership of KRIBHCO will be open to the following : (i) National Cooperative Federations of agricultural credit/marketing processing/supply and other agricultural Cooperative Societies; (ii) Apex Cooperative Federations of agricultural credit/marketing/process-ing/supply and other agricultural Cooperative Societies at the State and Union Territory level; (iii) Regional and District Cooperative credit/marketing/processing/supply and other agricultural Cooperative Societies; (iv) Primary agricultural Cooperative credit/marketing/processing/supply and other agricultural Cooperative Societies including sugar factories, cane unions, dairy co-operatives, farmers service societies etc; (v) Consumers Cooperatives at various levels engaged in the sale of fertilisers and other agricultural production requisites; (vi) Tribal Cooperative Federations and Tribal Cooperative development Corporations engaged or designed to engage amongst others in the sale of fertilisers and other agricultural production requisites; (vii) Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited; (viii) National Cooperative Development Corporation; (ix) Govt. of India; (x) Other Government Organisations/Undertakings engaged or designed to engage in the sale of fertiliser or other agricultural production requisites; (xi) Public Financing Institutions; (xii) Any Cooperative Society, activities of which are augmentative to the activities and conducive to overall growth of KRIBHCO; (B) Nominal Membership: Any such other persons/Societies/Institutions not covered under Bye-Law 6(a) above with whom KRIBHCO is likely to do business in connection with construction of plants, purchase, sales, storage and transport of raw materials for finished goods, may be admitted as nominal members provided the application for admission to such membership is received alongwith the admission fee of Rs. 1000/- and is duly accepted by the Board of Directors. Such admission fee shall not be refundable in any case. Such members will not have right to vote or participate in the management of KRIBHCO or in the sharing of its profits or liabilities. 14. Section 38 of the Act deals with constitution, powers and functions of general body and amongst others, provides that the ultimate authority of a multi-State Co-operative Society shall vest in the general body of its members. Section 41 deals with the Board of Directors and provides that there shall be a board of directors for every multi-State Co-operative Society consisting of such number of directors as may be specified in the bye-laws, provided that the maximum number of directors in no case shall exceed twenty-one but the board may co-opt two directors in addition to twenty-one directors. The directors are elected by the members of the multi-State Co-operative Society by a resolution in the general meeting. Section 44 of the Act deals with prohibition to hold office of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson and provides that no member of the board shall be eligible to be elected as the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of a multi-State Co-operative Society if such member is a Minister in the Central Government or State Government. Section 45 of the Act provides that the conduct of elections to the board of a multi-State Co-operative Society shall be the responsibility of the existing board and the election shall be held by secret ballot in the prescribed manner. Section 48 of the Act deals with nominee of Central Government or State Government on board. The relevant Bye-Laws of KRIBHCO in this regard are : "BOARD OF DIRECTORS 38. The Board of Directors of KRIBHCO shall not exceed 21 Directors excluding Functional Directors and Co-opted Directors. It shall consist of— (i) Eight Directors to be elected by the General Body of whom three shall be the representatives of the Apex Marketing Federation of different States/Union. (ii) Not more than three persons to be nominated by the Government of India based on equity share capital held by the Central Government i.e. one person if the equity share capital is less than 26%, two persons if the equity contribution is 26% or more but less than 51%; and three persons if the equity contribution is 51% or more of the total issued share capital; (iii) (Deleted vide Section 126 of 2002 Act); (iv) The Managing Director, Finance Director and Marketing Director of IFFCO (all ex-officio); (v) The Indian Financing agency or agencies, if any, providing long term credit to KRIBHCO shall also be eligible to nominate one Director if there is a provision to that effect in the loan agreement; (vi) The Board may co-opt two experts as Directors from amongst eminent economists or management experts or experts on cooperation." 15. Section 49 of the Act deals with the powers and functions of the board and includes the power to appoint and remove a Chief Executive and such other employees of the Society as are not required to be appointed by the Chief Executive, to make provisions for regulating the appointment of employees and the service conditions, to place the annual report, annual financial statements, annual plan and budget for the approval of the general body, to acquire or dispose of immovable property, to review membership in other co-operatives and to sanction loans to the members. Section 51 of the Act stipulates that the Chief Executive of every multi-State co-operative society shall be appointed by the board and he shall be a full-time employee of such multi-State co-operative society. It has further been provided in Section 52 of the Act that the Chief Executive shall under the general superintendence, direction and control of the board, exercise the powers and discharge the functions and some of the functions enumerated in the said Section are for making the appointment to the post in the Society, assisting the board in the formulation of policies, objectives and planning and furnishing to the board periodical information necessary for appraising the operations and functions of the multi-State co-operative society. 16. Section 61 of the Act deals with the Government aid to multi-State Co-operative Society and is as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the Central Government or a State Government, on receipt of request from a multi-State co-operative society and with a view to promoting co-operative movement, may,— (a) subscribe to the share capital of a multi-State co-operative society; (b) give loans or make advances to a multi-State co-operative society; (c) guarantee the repayment of principal and payment of interest on debentures issued by a multi-State co-operative society; (d) guarantee the repayment of share capital of a multi-State co-operative society and dividends thereon at such rates as may be specified by the Central Government or the State Government; (e) guarantee the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans and advances to a multi-State co-operative society; (f) give financial assistance in any other form, including subsidies, to any multi-State co-operative society; and (g) provide aid to any other multi-State co-operative society on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed." 17. Section 70 of the Act deals with appointment and remuneration of auditors and provides that every multi-State Co-operative Society shall appoint an auditor at each annual general meeting. Section 77 of the Act deals with power of Central Government to direct special audit in certain cases where the affairs of any multi-State co-operative society are not being managed in accordance with self-help and mutual aid and co-operative principles or prudent commercial practices; or with sound business principles; or that any multi-State co-operative society is being managed in a manner likely to cause serious injury or damage to the interests of the trade, industry or business to which it pertains; or that the financial position of any multi-State co-operative society is such as to endanger its solvency. 18. Chapter X of the Act deals with winding up of multi-State Co-operative Society. Section 122 contained in Chapter XV deals with the power of the Central Government to give directions to specified multi-State co-operative societies in public interest and is quoted below : "If the Central Government is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purposes of securing proper implementation of co-operative production and other developmental programmes approved or undertaken by the Central Government or to secure proper management of the business of the specified multi-State co-operative societies generally or for preventing the affairs of such society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, any depositors or creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of the specified multi-State co-operative societies generally or to any specified multi-State co-operative society or societies in particular, the Central Government may issue directions to it or to them, from time to time, and all such specified multi-State co-operative society or the societies concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions." 19. The provisions contained in the bye-laws relating to Share Capital and Funds are as below : "SHARE CAPITAL The authorised share capital of KRIBHCO shall be Rs. 500 crores consisting of— (i) 44,500 shares of Rs. 1 lakh each to be subscribed by Government of India, National Cooperative Development Corporation, Government Organizations/Undertakings, National/State Cooperative Federations and large Processing Cooperatives such as Cooperative Sugar Factories etc. (ii) 16,000 shares of Rs. 25,000 each to be subscribed by Regional, District Cooperative Societies, Dairy Cooperatives, Tribal Cooperative Federations and Tribal Cooperative Development Corporations. 1 lakh each to be subscribed by Government of India, National Cooperative Development Corporation, Government Organizations/Undertakings, National/State Cooperative Federations and large Processing Cooperatives such as Cooperative Sugar Factories etc. (ii) 16,000 shares of Rs. 25,000 each to be subscribed by Regional, District Cooperative Societies, Dairy Cooperatives, Tribal Cooperative Federations and Tribal Cooperative Development Corporations. (iii) 15,000 shares of Rs. 10,000 each to be subscribed by Primary Cooperative Societies including Cane Unions and Farmers Service Societies: Provided that the societies/Organisations mentioned in sub-clause (i) and (ii) which have taken one share of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 25,000 respectively are eligible to take shares of lower denomination as well : Provided also that societies/Organisations in sub-clause (ii) and (iii) are eligible for the allotment of higher denomination shares. SOURCES OF FUNDS (A) The KRIBHCO may raise funds from one or more of the following sources: (i) Admission fee; (ii) Share capital; (iii) Loans and deposits within India and abroad; (iv) Debentures, Bonds and Commercial Papers within India and abroad; (v) Grants-in-aid and donations; and (vi) Profit." 20. Based on the aforesaid legal provisions and bye-laws of KRIBHCO and also from the pleadings of the parties this Court has to find out whether KRIBHCO can be said to be an instrumentality of the State in order to constitute "any other authority" under Article 12 amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 21. The test on which a body can be said to be an authority amenable for its jurisdiction are no more res integra having been considered by the Apex Court time and again. The definition of State was initially treated to be exhaustive confined to the authorities stipulated under Article 12 and those which could be read ejusdem generis with the authorities mentioned therein and prior to 1960 and early sixties even the statutory bodies, like Universities, Government Colleges etc. were not held to be "other authorities" for the purpose of Article 12. For the first time in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal and others, AIR 1967 SC 1857 it was held that the expression "other authorities" are such which are conferred powers under law irrespective of the fact whether they were constituted for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities etc. For the first time in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal and others, AIR 1967 SC 1857 it was held that the expression "other authorities" are such which are conferred powers under law irrespective of the fact whether they were constituted for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities etc. Thereafter in Sukhdeo Singh and others v. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and others, AIR 1975 SC 1331 , Oil & Natural Gas Commission, the Industrial Finance Corporation and Life Insurance Corporation, were held to be State under Article 12 of the Constitution. though their employees are not civil servants. Thereafter in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 it was held that a Corporation may be created in one of two ways, namely, either by statute or incorporated under a law, such as, the Companies Act, 1956 or the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Where a Corporation is wholly controlled by Government not only in its policy making but also carrying out the functions entrusted to it by the law establishing it or by the Charter of its incorporation, it has to be treated as an instrumentality or agency of Government. 22. The apex Court propounded certain tests to determine whether a particular body is an instrumentality of the State or not. I do not propose to elaborate the said principles for the reason that subsequently a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 487 considered this issue and summarized the relevant tests discovered from Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) as under : (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 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 are 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." 23. In Ajay Hasia (supra) the question whether Regional Engineering College which was being administered by a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, came up for consideration. The Court held it to be an instrumentality of the State for the following reasons : "............The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The monies required for running the college are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and even if any other monies are to be received by the Society, it can be done only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The Rules to be made by the Society are also required to have the prior approval of the State and the Central Governments and the accounts of the Society have also to be submitted to both the Governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction. The Society is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee. The control of the State and the Central Governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Governments. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the State or Central Govt. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the State or Central Govt. can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is in-charge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the Central Governments. It will thus be seen that the State Government and by reason of the provision for approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the working of the Society and it would not be incorrect to say that the Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Governments.........." 24. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111 , the Constitution Bench of Seven Honble Judges of the Apex Court also considered the issue as to whether the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and upon consideration of the earlier cases, observed 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 hypothesis, 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." (emphasis supplied) 25. 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." (emphasis supplied) 25. Recently a writ petition against Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P., a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others, (2003) 8 SCC 639 and the Court held as under : ".........Therefore, even if it is taken to be admitted due to non-traverse, the share of the State Government would be only 50% and not entire. Thus, the first test laid down is not fulfilled by the Mill. It has been stated on behalf of the contesting respondents that the Mill used to receive some financial assistance from the Government. According to the Mill, the Government had advanced some loans to the Mill. It has nowhere been stated that the State used to meet any expenditure of the Mill much less almost the entire one, but, as a matter of fact, it operates on the basis of self-generated finances. There is nothing to show that the Mill enjoys monopoly status in the matter of production of sugar. A perusal of the bye-laws of the Mill would show that its membership is open to cane-growers, other societies, Gram Sabha, State Government etc. and under Bye-law 52, a Committee of Management consisting of fifteen members is constituted, out of whom, five members are required to be elected by the representatives of individual members, three out of the cooperative society and other institutions and two representatives of financial institutions besides five members who are required to be nominated by the State Government which shall be inclusive of the Chairman and Administrator. Thus, the ratio of the nominees of the State Government in the Committee is only 1/3rd and the management of the Committee is dominated by 2/3rd non-Government members. Under the bye-laws, the State Government can neither issue any direction to the Mill nor determine its policy as it is an autonomous body. Thus, the ratio of the nominees of the State Government in the Committee is only 1/3rd and the management of the Committee is dominated by 2/3rd non-Government members. Under the bye-laws, the State Government can neither issue any direction to the Mill nor determine its policy as it is an autonomous body. The State has no control at all in the functioning of the Mill much less a deep and pervasive one. The role of the Federation, which is the apex body and whose ex officio Chairman-cum-Managing Director is the Secretary, Department of Sugar Industry and Cane, Government of Uttar Pradesh, is only advisory and to guide its members. ....................... Thus, we find none of the indicia exists in the case of the Mill, as such the same being neither an instrumentality nor an agency of the Government cannot be said to be an authority and, therefore, it is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution." 26. In Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, AIR 2003 SC 4325 the question was whether the Federal Bank is an instrumentality of the State and negativing the same, the Court held as under : "As indicated earlier, share capital of the appellant bank is not held at all by the Government nor any financial assistance is provided by the State, nothing to say which may meet almost the entire expenditure of the company. The third factor is also not answered since the appellant bank does not enjoy any monopoly status not it can be said to be an institution having State protection. So far control over the affairs of the appellant bank is concerned, they are managed by the Board of Directors elected by its share-holders. No governmental agency or officer is connected with the affairs of the appellant bank nor anyone of them is a member of the Board of Directors. In the normal functioning of the private banking company there is no participation or interference of the State or its authorities. The statutes have been framed regulating the financial and commercial activities so that fiscal equilibrium may be kept maintained and not get disturbed by the mal-functioning of such companies or institutions involved in the business of banking. In the normal functioning of the private banking company there is no participation or interference of the State or its authorities. The statutes have been framed regulating the financial and commercial activities so that fiscal equilibrium may be kept maintained and not get disturbed by the mal-functioning of such companies or institutions involved in the business of banking. These are regulatory measures for the purposes of maintaining the healthy economic atmosphere in the country." "............Any business or commercial activity, may be banking, manufacturing units or related to any other kind of business generating resources, employment, production and resulting in circulation of money are no doubt, such which do have impact on the economy of the country in general. But such activities cannot be classified as one falling in the category of discharging duties or functions of a public nature. Thus the case does not fall in the fifth category of cases enumerated in the case of Ajay Hasia. Again we find that the activity which is carried on by the appellant is not one which may have been earlier carried on by the Government and transferred to the appellant company." 27. In G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute and another, (2003) 4 SCC 225 it was considered as to whether International Crops Research Institute is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and whether a writ petition would lie against it and after referring to Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), the Court observed as under : "The facts which have been narrated earlier clearly show that ICRISAT does not fulfil any of these tests. It was not set up by the Government and it gives its services voluntarily to a large number of countries besides India. It is not controlled by nor is it accountable to the Government. The Indian Governments financial contribution to ICRISAT is minimal. Its participation in ICRISATs administration is limited to 3 out of 15 members. It cannot, therefore, be said that ICRISAT is a State or other authority as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution." 28. It is not controlled by nor is it accountable to the Government. The Indian Governments financial contribution to ICRISAT is minimal. Its participation in ICRISATs administration is limited to 3 out of 15 members. It cannot, therefore, be said that ICRISAT is a State or other authority as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution." 28. Lastly, the issue as to whether Board of Control for Cricket in India is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has been considered in M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 SCC 649 and Honble Hegde, J. in the majority judgment held as under : "The facts established in this case shows the following : 1. Board is not created by a statute. 2. No part of the share capital of the Board is held by the Government. 3. Practically no financial assistance is given by the Government to meet the whole or entire expenditure of the Board. 4. The Board does enjoy a monopoly status in the field of cricket but such status is not State conferred or State protected. 5. There is no existence of a deep and pervasive State control. The control if any is only regulatory in nature as applicable to other similar bodies. This control is not specifically exercised under any special statute applicable to the Board. All functions of the Board are not public functions nor are they closely related to governmental functions. 6. The Board is not created by transfer of a Government owned corporation. It is an autonomous body. To these facts if we apply the principles laid down by seven-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), it would be clear that the facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or is under the control of the Government. Thus the little control that the Government may be said to have on the Board is not pervasive in nature. Such limited control is purely regulatory control and nothing more." 29. Thus the little control that the Government may be said to have on the Board is not pervasive in nature. Such limited control is purely regulatory control and nothing more." 29. From the above, it is evident that 2002 Act has been enacted to facilitate the democratic functioning of cooperatives and to facilitate voluntary formation thereof as peoples institutions based on self-help and mutual aid and to enable them to promote their economic and social betterment and to provide functional autonomy and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Multi-State Co-operative Society can be registered under the Act only if its objects are to serve the interests of members in more than one State and if its bye-laws provide for social and economic betterment of its members through self help and mutual aid in accordance with the co-operative principles, i.e., voluntary organisations, open to all persons capable of using their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership controlled by their members in democratic way, permitting their participation in setting their policies and decision making. The members contribute equitably and control the capital of their Co-operatives democratically. In other words, the Co-operatives are autonomous, self help organisations controlled by their members and if they enter into agreement with other organisations including Government or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure their democratic control by members and maintenance of co-operative autonomy. The Bye-Laws of KRIBHCO show that the ultimate authority vests in the general body and its membership is open to, amongst others, National Co-operative Federations and State Level Co-operative Federations of agricultural credit, marketing, processing, supply and other cooperative societies, apex cooperative federations of the same nature of the State and Union Territories, Regional and District Cooperatives, Primary agricultural Cooperative, consumer cooperatives at various levels etc. besides IFFCO, National Cooperative Development Corporation, Government of India Public Financing Institutions and other Government of India Undertaking Organisations engaged or designed to engage in the sale of fertilisers and other agricultural production requisites. 30. Strength of the Board of Directors also cannot exceed 21, excluding Functional Directors and Co-opted Directors. besides IFFCO, National Cooperative Development Corporation, Government of India Public Financing Institutions and other Government of India Undertaking Organisations engaged or designed to engage in the sale of fertilisers and other agricultural production requisites. 30. Strength of the Board of Directors also cannot exceed 21, excluding Functional Directors and Co-opted Directors. Out of these, 8 Directors are to be elected by the General Body, not more than three persons to be nominated by the Government of India based on equity share capital held by the Central Government i.e. one person if the equity share capital is less than 26%, two persons if the equity contribution is 26% or more but less than 51%; and three persons if the equity share capital is 51% or more of the total issued share capital. It is open to the Board to co-opt two experts from amongst eminent economists and management experts of cooperatives. Therefore, out of 21 Directors of the Board, the Central Government cannot nominate more than three and that too based on equity share capital showing a very minimal/nominal representation of the Government. The Board of Directors have also such powers as are considered necessary and expedient for the purpose of carrying out the functions under the bye-laws and the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that KRIBHCO enjoy any monopoly status in the matter of production of fertilisers etc. There is nothing also to show that it has been created by transfer of a Government owned corporation or its financial control is done by the Government of India in any manner. 31. Thus, from various provisions of the Act and bye-laws of KRIBHCO, in my view, it is borne out that neither it can be said that KRIBHCO is the creature of Statute nor it gets whole or entire expenditure or financial assistance from the Government nor it enjoys a monopoly status. It is also difficult to say that there is a deep and pervasive control of the State and whatever control, if any, is mere regulatory in nature. KRIBHCO does not perform the functions of public nature, neither can it be said to be closely related to Government functions, nor is an autonomous body which has been created by transfer of Government owned Cooperative. KRIBHCO does not perform the functions of public nature, neither can it be said to be closely related to Government functions, nor is an autonomous body which has been created by transfer of Government owned Cooperative. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that KRIBHCO cannot be said to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IFFCO is also a body which is not created by any statute and no part of its share capital is held by the Government. It is a Multi State Cooperative Society like KRIBHCO. A Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti Kumar Malviya (supra) after considering the matter in detail has held that "IFFCO" does not answer the "State" for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution and in para 44, 45 and 47 of the judgment held as under : "44. Thus, from the aforesaid it is clear that IFFCO is not created by a Statute; that no part of the share capital is held by the Government; that practically no financial assistance is given by the Government to meet the whole or entire expenditure of IFFCO; that IFFCO does not enjoy a monopoly status; that there is no existence of deep and pervasive State control and whatever control is there, is merely regulatory in nature; that IFFCO does not perform public functions and nor are they closely related to Government functions and that IFFCO is an autonomous body which has not been created by transfer of a Government owned corporation. 45. The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas when applied to the aforesaid facts do not cumulatively demonstrate that IFFCO is financially, functionally or administratively dominated by the Government or is under its control. 47. In the present case we have found as a fact that the State does not have any pervasive control over IFFCO and as such the said decision in the case of Land Development Bank Ltd. does not help the petitioner." 32. Learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on a number of authorities in support of his contention that writ petition against KRIBHCO is maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on a number of authorities in support of his contention that writ petition against KRIBHCO is maintainable. Some of the judgments are Sukhdeo Singh (supra), Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), Ajay Hasia (supra), and Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) which have already been dealt with by this Court. The other judgments cited are Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (1983) 3 SCC 379 ; B.M. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, (1983) 4 SCC 582 ; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 ; Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shri Mukta Ji Vandana Ji Swamy Swarn Jayanti Mahotsava Smarak Trust and others v. B.R. Rupani and others, AIR 1989 SC 1607 ; U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others, (1999) 1 SCC 741 ; Gayatri De v. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society and others, (2004) 5 SCC 90 ; Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam and another, (2005) 1 SCC 149 and Radhey Shyam Rai v. State of U.P. and others, (2005) UPLBEC 2549 (FB). I have considered and perused all the said judgments and do not find anything contrary to the view which I have already taken in this judgment reiterating the same principles which have been culled down by the Court from all the aforesaid authorities. Moreover all these aspects have also been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti Kumar Malviya (supra) while considering a similar issue in respect to IFFCO and follow the same. 33. This Court also held in the aforesaid judgment Jyoti Kumar Malviya (supra) that IFFCO also does not discharge any public function and therefore is a purely private body and not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The same thing applies to KRIBHCO also for the same reasons. That being so, the entire edifice of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, fails for the reasons that if respondent No. 4 does not answer description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, Articles 12 and 21 also would have no application. That being so, the entire edifice of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, fails for the reasons that if respondent No. 4 does not answer description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, Articles 12 and 21 also would have no application. The dispute involved in the present writ petition thus is purely of breach of contract, if any, by a private employer and against such action no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable but the petitioner may have common law remedy as available to him. 34. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that in order to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not necessary that there must exist statutory obligation only but Article 226 provides that a writ can be issued for any other purpose and, therefore, writ petition would be maintainable. He placed reliance on Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 8; Rohtash Industries Ltd. v. Rohtash Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82 ; Praga Tool Corporation v. C.A. Imanual, (1989) 1 SCC 385 ; U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. (supra); Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1999) 6 SCC 667 and A.B.L. International v. Credit Export Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 . He also contended that KRIBHCO performs and discharge public duty and therefore, the writ petition would be maintainable. The various judgment reiterate that language of Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide and clear. Prima facie, from the language of Article 226 there does not appear to exist such a divide between public law and private law. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast that the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and self imposed limitations subject to which High Courts would exercise its jurisdiction. The guidelines may not be mandatory in all circumstances but have to be followed invariably. The High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is an established procedure to remedy a wrong or to enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. The High Court does not act like a proverbial "bull in a china shop" in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. Where there is a dispute between two private parties or complaint of breach of contract, the remedy lies in common law and in such matters, Article 226 would not be an appropriate remedy. 35. In the case in hand, the petitioners have been terminated by respondent No. 8, a private company and, therefore, at the best his claim is against respondent No. 8, complaining alleged breach of contract and for damages. In the case of breach of contract of employment, remedy of specific performance would not lie unless it is shown that the employee is entitled to reinstatement under some statutory provision etc, as laid down by the Apex Court in U.P State Warehousing Corporation v. C.K. Tyagi, AIR 1970 SC 1244 ; Executive Committee, Vaish Degree College v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 888 ; Smt. J. Tiwari v. Smt. Jwala Devi, AIR 1981 SC 122 and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama, (2004) 3 SCC 172 . Therefore, considering from any angle, the remedy of the petitioner would lie in common law and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it appropriate to go into other questions as to whether the agreement executed between respondents No. 7 and 8 was in fact on behalf of respondent No. 4, etc. inasmuch as, it is not necessary in the light of the aforesaid discussion. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. ————