State or authority status under Article 12 denied where private company control and commercial functions preclude writ jurisdiction.

Whether an undertaking qualifies as "State" or an "authority" under Article 12/226 is determined by tests including ownership of share capital, monopoly status, nature of functions (governmental vs commercial), degree of state financial assistance, and statutory imposition of duties. Applying these factors, the entity's majority private board control despite a shareholding stake, private company constitution, commercial objects of production and sale, absence of pervasive statutory duties, and lack of pervasive governmental control lead to the conclusion that it does not constitute State or an authority; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 thus does not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether Periyar Latex (P.) Ltd. is "State" or an "authority" for the purposes of Article 12 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering termination of the petitioner amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: Applicable tests for determining whether an entity is State or an authority include (i) whether entire share capital is held by the State, (ii) whether the entity enjoys monopoly status, (iii) whether the functions are governmental or public, (iv) whether substantial financial assistance is received from the State, and (v) whether statutory duties are imposed. Applying these tests to the company: (a) though the Rubber Board holds over 50% of shares, it nominates only three of nine directors leaving it in a minority on the board; (b) management and control rest with the board of directors rather than the Rubber Board or the Government; (c) the company is constituted as a private company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(iii) of the Companies Act with privately subscribed shares; (d) the company's main objects-production, manufacture and sale of rubber-are commercial and not governmental functions; and (e) no pervasive governmental control or statutory duties attributable to State control are discernible from the constitution and nature of the company's business.

Conclusion: The company is not "State" or an "authority" for the purposes of Article 12 and Article 226; issue decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

---