Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a company whose management and control had been temporarily taken over under section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, was an authority within Article 12 of the Constitution so as to be amenable to a writ petition under Article 226 challenging termination of service.
Analysis: The company remained an incorporated private company, and the temporary assumption of management under Chapter 3A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 did not transfer ownership to the State. The statutory scheme showed only limited and temporary control, subject to revocation, with the Companies Act continuing to apply subject to exceptions. The indicia laid down for identifying an instrumentality of the State were not satisfied: the share capital was privately held, no monopoly status was shown, no governmental department had been transferred, and no public-function nexus was established. The control exercised by the Central Government was not deep and pervasive enough to convert the company into a State agency or instrumentality.
Conclusion: The company was not an authority within Article 12, and the writ petition was not maintainable on the alleged infringement of Article 14.