Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Gram Panchayat and another resident of the village have filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Gurdaspur (respondent No.4), whereby the said respondent has approved the functioning of the Village Rural Education Development Committee. As per the petitioners, this has been done illegally and arbitrarily with malafide intention. 2. A Rural Education Development Committee was formed in the year 2006 in the Government Primary Kallu Sohal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It is stated that representation was given to different sections by following the instructions of the Department of Education. This Committee was formed pursuant to a project of development of education in rural area under the name of Sarva Shikhsha Abhiyan. The Government of Punjab has also created a Sarva Shikhsha Abhiyan Authority and has proposed to perform Rural Education Development Committee from the concerned village. 3. On 7.8.2010, some persons of the village allegedly called a meeting of the residents of the village and had passed a resolution, dissolving the earlier Committee and on the same day, decided to form a new Committee in place of the earlier one. Another meeting was held on 9.8.2010, whereby the Committee elected some persons including respondent No.6 as new Chairman. It is stated that the name of respondent No.6 does not figure in the elected Committee Members. Respondent No.4, without consulting the Village Gram Panchayat and without verifying the ground reality, has approved the formation of new Committee. It is averred that this does not even fulfill the basic terms and conditions laid down by the Government in its instructions, Annexure P-6. The petitioners submitted a complaint against the same. However, no action was taken and the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to challenge order, Annexure P-6. 4. The petitioners had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.15391 of 2010, which was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition to make an averment to show that the education Society would come within the definition of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The order in this regard is as under:- "Some submissions have been made by the counsel for the petitioners to show that Village Education Development Committee would be a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The order in this regard is as under:- "Some submissions have been made by the counsel for the petitioners to show that Village Education Development Committee would be a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There is no averment made in the petition as to which all tests this Education Society would fulfill, to be termed as State within Article 12 of the Constitution. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one by making a wholesome challenge to show that the said Education Society would come within the definition of "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for." 5. This writ petition has now been filed again to challenge the said order. In order to show that the Committee is a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is averred that the same is financially, functioning under the administrative control of the State Government. The Committee is to closely work with the State Government and for development of education and is bound to obey the directions issued by the State Government from time to time. As per the petitioners, grants are also given by the Government and majority of the funds are coming from the State Government. It is accordingly stated that the Committee would be a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. As per Article 12, unless the context otherwise require; "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the Control of Government of India. The Education Committee could be termed as a State if it can be termed as other authority. Basically, it is required to be seen as to what function any corporation or society is performing to see if it can be termed as other authority. The Education Committee could be termed as a State if it can be termed as other authority. Basically, it is required to be seen as to what function any corporation or society is performing to see if it can be termed as other authority. If a corporation or a society is found to be a mere agency or surrogate of the Government and in fact is owned by the Government and in truth controlled by the Government, then the Court must not allow enforcement of fundamental rights to be frustrated by taking the view that it is not the Government and, therefore, not subject to the Constitutional limitations. Any corporation or an agency of the Government must be held to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12. This question has been considered in large number of cases and whether a Corporation can be regarded as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 arose for consideration in R.D.Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 1628. The Court in this case addressed itself to a question as to how to determine whether a corporation is acting as a instrumentality or agency of the Government. Dealing with this question, the Court has held that where a Corporation is wholly controlled by the Government, not only in its policy making but also in carrying out functions entrusted to it by the law establishing it or by charter of its incorporation, there can be no doubt that it would be an instrumentality and agency of the Government. The Court had indicated different tests, apart from ownership of the entire State capital in this regard to determine this question. Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the Corporation, it would afford some indication of the Corporation being impregnated with Government character. Another factor, which may be regarded as having a bearing on the issue is whether the operation of the Corporation is an important public function. Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the Corporation, it would afford some indication of the Corporation being impregnated with Government character. Another factor, which may be regarded as having a bearing on the issue is whether the operation of the Corporation is an important public function. No doubt, that even this test of public or Government character of the functioning is not easy of application and does not invariably lead to correct inference because of the range of the Governmental activity is broad invaded and merely because an activity may be such as may legitimately be carried on by the Government, it does not mean that a Corporation which is otherwise a private entity would be an instrumentality and agency of Government by reasons of carrying on such a duty. The relevant tests, which can be summarized from the decision in the International Airport Authority, can be summed up as follows:- "(1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or 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". If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authoritys case, be an authority and, therefore, State within the meaning of the expression in Article 12." 7. If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authoritys case, be an authority and, therefore, State within the meaning of the expression in Article 12." 7. The Hoble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Majib Sehravardi, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 487, held as under:- "We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The corporation may be a statutory corporation created by a statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression "authority in Article 12." 8. In determining whether corporation or a Government company or a private body is an instrumentality or agency of the State, following tests would be applicable:- i. Whether the entire share capital or funding is held by the Government or entire funding is by the Government. ii. Whether it enjoys monopoly status conferred by the State. iii. Whether the functions are Governmental functions or functions closely related thereto. iv. Whether any department of the Government has been transferred to it. v. The volume of the financial assistance received from the State. vi. The quantum of the State Control. vii. ii. Whether it enjoys monopoly status conferred by the State. iii. Whether the functions are Governmental functions or functions closely related thereto. iv. Whether any department of the Government has been transferred to it. v. The volume of the financial assistance received from the State. vi. The quantum of the State Control. vii. Whether any statutory duties are imposed upon the Corporation. viii. Lastly, the character of the corporation may change with respect to its different functions. 9. There is no averment made in the petition that the Committee in question is a creation of statute. There is also no averment in regard to the control being exercised over this Committee by the Government. There is also no averment as to how much grant this Society is receiving from the Government. It appears that this Society is an Education Committee formed by the villagers to see the functioning of the Scheme formulated by the Government and has no rules or regulations to either regulate the selection to the Members of the Committee or to supervise the functioning thereof. Apparently, there is no control of the Government over this Committee. The Committee, as such, does not satisfy any of the tests to be termed as instrumentality of the State to be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 10. The writ petition, thus, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.