ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. The petitioner-N.Darahasa Lahari joined the respondent-Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company (SUD Life, for short) as Assistant Vice President on 01.03.2012, after due selection process. He was confirmed in the employment with effect from 11.09.2012. In December, 2012, he was transferred to Visakhapatnam as Area Head. On the ground of consistent under-performance and non-achieving of set targets, he was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2015 seeking response. Petitioner submitted his response on 17.04.2015 detailing his achievements even during the period of crisis in the wake of cyclone-hit in Visakhapatnam. He was issued another letter dated 22.04.2015 proposing to take further action on the ground that only 65% of the target was achieved under the petitioner’s leadership. Petitioner submitted his response on 27.04.2015. However, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 29.04.2015, allegedly under pressure, and specifying his last working day would be 28.06.2015. The Regional Head, vide e-mail dated 29.04.2015 communicated to the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted with immediate effect and that he would be relieved from services on 27.06.2015 subject to completion of relieving formalities. Thereafter, on 13.06.2015, the petitioner addressed a letter requesting permission to withdraw his resignation dated 29.04.2015. The petitioner was issued a response e-mail dated 27.06.2015 stating that his resignation was accepted and a reply communicating acceptance of resignation was sent to him on 29.04.2015. Petitioner’s salary for the months of May and June 2015 have not been credited to his account within time, and he has been making representations for release of salary and the respondents have issued Proceedings dated 17.07.2015 stating that Full and Final settlement of accounts is being processed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had performed well and achieved targets and his pay was also raised year on year, as can be seen from the pay statements filed as material papers with the writ petition, and that he tendered his resignation under forced circumstances, and later he made a request to permit him to withdraw his resignation, but his request was not acceded to. Petitionerassails the Proceedings dated 29.04.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent accepting the resignation as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 28.06.2015. 2. Heard Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Petitionerassails the Proceedings dated 29.04.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent accepting the resignation as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 28.06.2015. 2. Heard Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-SUD Life. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that that SUD Life is a joint venture of Bank of India, Union Bank of India and Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company of Japan, and as on the date of filing the writ petition, the total combined share of the Bank of India and Union Bank of India was around 74%, however, due to efflux of time, the share of Bank of India has come down to 28.96% and that of Union Bank of India to 25.10%, however, in any event, the cumulative share of the two banks is still over 54% which effectively places the Banks holding (and thereby Government’s holding) at majority and therefore the Government has a deep and pervasive control over respondent-joint venture i.e., SUD Life can effectively be called an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, bringing it within the fold of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to page No.33 of the Reply affidavit wherein SUD Life is stated to be a deemed Government Company under Section 619(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) Audit, and therefore the respondent, and consequently the action of respondents in accepting the resignation of the petitioner and relieving him from services,is liable be set aside under Article 226. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has achieved significant results in comparison to other insurance players, and even during crisis period during cyclone in Visakhapatnam, the petitioner has shown results and the pay raises given to the petitioner during 2012-13 and 2013-14 are testimonial to the performance of the petitioner, and the petitioner had to resign due to pressures and later he sought permission to withdraw his resignation, however, he was not permitted to resume his position in the company, and therefore the impugned action is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner though submitted resignation letter on 19.04.2015 due to pressures, however, he later submitted a letter dated 13.06.2015 requesting to permit him to withdraw the resignation. It is contended that earlier this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, however, later in writ appeal was allowed remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. It is contended that the respondents filed counter affidavit on 04.10.2023 and therefore the counter is liable to be refused as the same was filed beyond 120 days from the date of service of notice. It is also contended that the respondents are aware of the proceedings at the earlier stage when the writ petition was dismissed, and the respondents have even contested the matter, but they did not choose to file counter until after it was remanded and restored to the file. It is contended that the respondent is trying to evade constitutional responsibilities in spite of Government holding majority share in the company. Learned counsel contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas, AIR 1957 SC 529 enumerated as to when a writ petition is maintainable, and a perusal of paragraph 18 of the said judgment disclose that even a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation, is after remanding the matter on for Learned counsel relies on the following judgments in support of her contentions: i) Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India, (2000) 5 SCC 621 (wherein reference was made to Balram Gupta v. Union of India , [ (1987) Supp SCC 228 ] , J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India , [ (1998) 9 SCC 559 ] , Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia , [ (1997) 4 SCC 280 ] to contend that resignation request, in spite of its acceptance,can be withdrawn before the effective date. ii) XXXXXXX 4. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia , [ (1997) 4 SCC 280 ] to contend that resignation request, in spite of its acceptance,can be withdrawn before the effective date. ii) XXXXXXX 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, basing on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, would submit that SUD Life though a joint venture of Bank of India and Union Bank of India (which are Government of India controlled), and Dai-Ichi Insurance Company of Japan, and is registered under Companies Act, 1956, and the CIN Number contains alphabetic Code “PLC” which means Public Limited Company, and therefore the respondent is not a Government/State enterprise, and even the information found on the Official Website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs also shows the respondent company as a “Non-govt company”. It is also contended that as per Section 2(45) of Companies Act, 2013, “Government Company” means a company in which 51% of paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by State Government, or Governments, or partly Central and party one or more State Governments, and includes a subsidiary company of the Government company, however, in the instant case, neither the Central Government nor State Government nor both jointly hold 51% paid up share capital in respondent SUD Life and therefore the respondent is not a Government company. It is further contended that even as per subsidiary definition, neither the Bank of India nor Union Bank of India hold 51% paid-up share capital in the respondent company, and further the respondent is neither a local authority of the Government nor an entity operating under the authority of the Government of India or be situated within the territorial limits of India to be considered as State. It is contended that neither the Government of India, nor the State Government provides any funds or grants to the respondent company, and further the Bank of India or the Union Bank of India, apart from holding shares in the respondent company, do not provide any funds or grants to the respondent company, and that the Government of India or the State Government do not have any administrative or supervisory control over the management and affairs of the respondent company. Learned counsel submits that as per the mandate under the Companies Act, the accounts of SUD Life are audited by the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General of India, however, merely because the accounts are audited, the respondent does not become Government company or State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution. Learned counsel contends that respondent-SUD Life is a private company with no public duty element involved, and therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is contended that the grievance of the petitioner relates to employment, which is primarily contractual in nature, and even admitting that private organizations discharging public function are amenable to writ jurisdiction, the matters of employment, being contractual in nature, are governed by the employment offer which is a contract document, and a contract document between two private individuals cannot invoke writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel, while strongly contending that the respondent company is a Private Insurance Company, relies on the following judgments: 1) Joshi Technologies v. Union of India , [ (2015) 7 SCC 728 ] to contend that writ remedy under Article 226 or Article 32 cannot be invoked in pure contractual matters. 2) Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. R. Rudani , [ (1989) 2 SCC 69 ] to contend that mandamus cannot be issued if the rights are purely of private character even if there is an element of public duty involved in the private organization. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the following ratio in paragraph 12 of Andi Mukta (supra). “The essence of the attack on the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 may now be examined. It is argued that the management of the college being a trust registered under the Public Trust Act is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The contention in other words, is that the: trust is a private institution against which no writ of mandamus can be issued. In support of the contention, the counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court: (a) Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors., [1976] 2 SCR 1006 and (b) Deepak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instructions, [1987] 2 SCC 252.1n the first of the two cases, the respondent institution was a Degree College managed by a registered co-operative society. A suit was filed against the college by the dismissed principal for reinstatement. It was contended that the Executive Committee of the college which was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and affiliated to the Agra University (and subsequently to Meerut University) was a statutory body. The importance of this contention lies in the fact that in such a case, reinstatement could be ordered if the dismissal is in violation of statutory obligation. But this Court refused to accept the contention. It was observed that the management of the college was not a statutory body since not created by or under a statute. It was emphasised that an institution which adopts certain statutory provisions will not become a statutory body and the dismissed employee cannot enforce a contract of personal service against a non-statutory body. The decision in Vaish Degree College was followed in Deepak Kumar Biswas case. There again a dismissed lecturer of a private college was seeking reinstatement in service. The Court refused to grant the relief although it was found that the dismissal was wrongful. This Court instead granted substantial monetary benefits to the lecturer. This appears to be the preponderant judicial opinion because of the common law principle that a service contract cannot be specifically enforced.” 3) Secy., Technical Education, U.P v. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay , [ (2007) 4 SCC 492 ] to contend that a resignation request can be withdrawn prior to its acceptance by the employer, but in the instant case, the resignation letter was accepted by the employer on the same day it was given by the petitioner. 5. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, it may be noted that the issue that falls for consideration is whether a writ petition is maintainable by or against the respondent- Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company (SUD Life, for short) under Article 226 of the Constitution in the capacity of a State or instrumentality of the State; if so, does the grievance of the petitioner-employee fall within the scope of adjudication under Article 226. 6. It may be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas , (2003) 10 SCC 733 ] held as follows: “18. 6. It may be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas , (2003) 10 SCC 733 ] held as follows: “18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 26. A company registered under the Companies Act for the purposes of carrying on any trade or business is a private enterprise to earn livelihood and to make profits out of such activities. Banking is also a kind of profession and a commercial activity, the primary motive behind it can well be said to earn returns and profits. Since time immemorial, such activities have been carried on by individuals generally. It is a private affair of the company though the case of nationalized banks stands on a different footing. There may well be companies, in which majority of the share capital may be contributed out of the State funds and in that view of the matter there may be more participation or dominant participation of the State in managing the affairs of the company. But in the present case we are concerned with a banking company which has its own resources to raise its funds without any contribution or shareholding by the State. It has its own Board of Directors elected by its shareholders. It works like any other private company in the banking business having no monopoly status at all. Any company carrying on banking business with a capital of five lakhs will become a scheduled bank. All the same, banking activity as a whole carried on by various banks undoubtedly has an impact and effect on the economy of the country in general. Money of the shareholders and the depositors is with such companies, carrying on banking activity. The banks finance the borrowers on any given rate of interest at a particular time. All the same, banking activity as a whole carried on by various banks undoubtedly has an impact and effect on the economy of the country in general. Money of the shareholders and the depositors is with such companies, carrying on banking activity. The banks finance the borrowers on any given rate of interest at a particular time. They advance loans as against securities. Therefore, it is obviously necessary to have regulatory check over such activities in the interest of the company itself, the shareholders, the depositors as well as to maintain the proper financial equilibrium of the national economy. The banking companies have not been set up for the purposes of building the economy of the State; on the other hand such private companies have been voluntarily established for their own purposes and interest but their activities are kept under check so that their activities may not go wayward and harm the economy in general. A private banking company with all freedom that it has, has to act in a manner that it may not be in conflict with or against the fiscal policies of the State and for such purposes, guidelines are provided by Reserve Bank so that a proper fiscal discipline, to conduct its affairs in carrying on its business, is maintained. So as to ensure adherence to such fiscal discipline, if need be, at times even the management of the company can be taken over. Nonetheless, as observed earlier, these are all regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guidelines and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. For other companies in general carrying on other business activities, maybe manufacturing, other industries or any business, such checks are provided under the provisions of the Companies Act, as indicated earlier. There also, the main consideration is that the company itself may not sink because of its own mismanagement or the interest of the shareholders or people generally may not be jeopardized for that reason. Besides taking care of such interest as indicated above, there is no other interest of the State, to control the affairs and management of the private companies. Besides taking care of such interest as indicated above, there is no other interest of the State, to control the affairs and management of the private companies. Care is taken in regard to the industries covered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 that their production, which is important for the economy, may not go down, yet the business activity 12 is carried on by such companies or corporations which only remains a private activity of the entrepreneurs/companies. 27. Such private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including the private companies. For example, there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Factories Act or for maintaining proper environment, say the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. or statutes of the like nature which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance with those provisions. For instance, if a private employer dispenses with the service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, in innumerable cases the High Court interfered and has issued the writ to the private bodies and the companies in that regard. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance with or violation of any statutory provision by the private body. In that event a writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to.” 7. A perusal of Sagar Thomas (supra) would show that a writ is maintainable under Article 226 even against a private entity provided that the grievance is with regard to discharging of a public function. However, conversely, the very maintainability of a writ under Article 226 against an entity with regard to a public function does not necessarily make such an entity a State or an instrumentality of the State. However, conversely, the very maintainability of a writ under Article 226 against an entity with regard to a public function does not necessarily make such an entity a State or an instrumentality of the State. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the combined share-holding of the two Banks of Indiais not material to maintain a writ against respondent-SUD Life as the respondent-SUD Life is mandated under the Statute, both under Companies Act, 1956 (now Companies Act, 2013), as well as the Regulations prescribed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to conduct the insurance business in accordance with the Statute. Thus, the Statute effectively compels the respondent to be amenable to the provisions under the Companies Act, and also conduct insurance business within the regulatory parameters promulgated by the IRDAI. That being so, any deviation that has a character of violating the provisions mandated under Companies Act, or IRDAI regulations may invite jurisdiction under Article 226. The element of public duty is the ingredient common for both State/instrumentality of the State, and a private entity that renders the entity amenable to writ jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts.It may further be noted that in matters relating to employment in private industries governed under the Industrial Dispute Act, writ petitions under Article 226 were entertained as, primarily, recourse to such disputes is provided under the Industrial Dispute Act. 8. In the instant case, the employment of the petitioner with the respondent-SUD Life is purely a contractual matter arising out of the employment offer which is a document of contract between the management of respondent-SUD Life and the petitioner. Therefore, the acceptance of resignation of the petitioner is a matter governed by the terms of contract. The petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition against the respondent-SUD Life on the mere ground that it is a joint venture with two Indian public-sector banks, as essentially the grievance of the petitioner is not about illegality in discharge of public function (insurance business) by the respondent-SUD Life, or deviation of any mandatory statutory processes or protocols under Companies Act, or IRDAI Act, while discharging such public function. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue remedies as available under law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.