Petition Dismissed: GJEPC Not 'State Instrumentality'

The court concluded that the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) does not qualify as an 'instrumentality of State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. As a result, the petition filed against GJEPC was deemed not maintainable under Article 226 and was dismissed. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue other legal remedies available to address the termination of her employment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition against GJEPC under Article 12 of the Constitution.
2. Whether GJEPC qualifies as an "instrumentality of State" under Article 12.
3. The degree of control and financing by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MOCI) over GJEPC.
4. The nature of the functions performed by GJEPC and whether they are public or governmental functions.
5. The legal implications of the termination of the petitioner's employment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition Against GJEPC Under Article 12:
The primary issue addressed was whether the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) falls under the definition of 'other authority' within Article 12 of the Constitution. The court examined the nature of GJEPC, its formation, and its functions to determine its status.

2. Whether GJEPC Qualifies as an "Instrumentality of State" Under Article 12:
The court applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas to determine if GJEPC is an instrumentality of the State. These tests include:
- Entire share capital held by the government.
- Financial assistance meeting almost entire expenditure.
- Monopoly status conferred or protected by the State.
- Deep and pervasive State control.
- Functions of public importance closely related to governmental functions.
- Transfer of a government department to the corporation.

The court found that GJEPC, a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, does not meet these criteria. It was established by private individuals, has voluntary membership, and is not controlled by the State. The primary source of funds is membership subscriptions, not government grants, which are project-specific and do not exceed 27% of total revenue.

3. Degree of Control and Financing by MOCI Over GJEPC:
The petitioner argued that GJEPC functions under the sponsorship of MOCI and is substantially financed by it. However, the court found that the funding received from MOCI is conditional and project-specific, not substantial enough to indicate pervasive control. The court also noted that the Committee of Administration of GJEPC, which manages its affairs, consists mostly of members not appointed by the government.

4. Nature of Functions Performed by GJEPC:
The petitioner claimed that GJEPC performs public duties, such as promoting exports and implementing the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. The court, however, concluded that these functions are not governmental but are carried out by a body of individuals for their benefit. The court emphasized that GJEPC's functions do not have a public law character and are not akin to state functions.

5. Legal Implications of the Termination of the Petitioner's Employment:
The petitioner argued that her termination was arbitrary and without due process. The court, however, did not delve into the merits of the termination, as it concluded that the petition itself was not maintainable under Article 226. The court noted that the petitioner could seek appropriate remedies available in law.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that GJEPC is not an 'instrumentality of State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The petition was dismissed, with the court granting the petitioner the liberty to seek other legal remedies.

---