https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196287 VSNL/TCL was treated as a commercial telecom company, not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12, because Government shareholding had become minority and control was not financially, functionally or administratively pervasive. The Court also distinguished public functions from ordinary commercial activity and held that providing telecom services for consideration in a competitive market did not, by itself, attract writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Service and termination disputes arising from the employment relationship were characterised as contractual and not enforceable through writ remedy. The stated ratio is that pervasive Government control is essential for Article 12 status, and succession from a former government department does not automatically create a public duty. en-us Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Nov 2017 11:26:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196287 VSNL/TCL was treated as a commercial telecom company, not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12, because Government shareholding had become minority and control was not financially, functionally or administratively pervasive. The Court also distinguished public functions from ordinary commercial activity and held that providing telecom services for consideration in a competitive market did not, by itself, attract writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Service and termination disputes arising from the employment relationship were characterised as contractual and not enforceable through writ remedy. The stated ratio is that pervasive Government control is essential for Article 12 status, and succession from a former government department does not automatically create a public duty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196287