AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 4531 ::2003 AIR SCW 5291 ::2003 ALL. L. J. 2665 ::(2003) 11 IndLD 845 ::2003 LabLR 1122 ::2004 (1) UJ (SC) 227 ::2004 UJ(SC) 1 227 ::2003 (3) CurLR 972 ::2003 (8) SCC 639 ::(2003) 3 LabLJ 1108 ::(2003) 8 Scale 343 ::2004 (1) All CJ 263 ::2004 (1) ServLJ 145 SC ::(2004) 1 ServLJ 145 ::(2003) 6 All WC 5254 ::(2003) 103 FJR 889 ::(2004) 1 ESC 142 ::(2003) 4 Lab LN 1238 ::2004 (2) MadLW 28 ::2003 (4) JLJR 214 ::(2003) 4 KHCACJ 578 (SC) ::(2003) 4 Pat LJR 197 ::2003 (4) PatLJR 196 ::(2004) 1 SCT 216 ::(2004) 1 ServLR 361 ::(2004) WritLR 163 ::(2003) 7 Supreme 250 ::2003 (6) SLT 435 ::2004 (3) SRJ 308 ::2003 (8) JT 236 ::(2003) 8 JT 235 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Allahabad)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Y. K. Sabharwal, B. N. Agrawal , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.12, Art.226— Co-operative Sugar Mill - Whether instrumentality of State or Agency of Govt. - Determination - Test - Govt. of U.P. held only 50% share in Mill - Expenditure of Mill was not met by State but it operated on basis of self-generated finances - Nominees of State Govt. in Committee of Management of Mill was only 1/3rd and it was dominated by 2/3rd non-Govt. members - Under its Bye-laws State Govt. could neither issued any direction to Mill nor determine its policy - State had no deep or pervasive control over Mill - Mill thus was neither instrumentality nor agency of Govt. and, therefore, not 'tate' within meaning of Art. 12. (Para 8) (B) Constitution of India , Art.226— Writ jurisdiction - When cannot be invoked - Writ sought against Co-operative Sugar Mill - Mill was engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar - No public function was involved - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. (Para 9) (C) Constitution of India , Art.226— Writ petition - Question of fact - Service matter - Claim for regularisation of services - Question whether writ petitioners had worked for more than 240 days and whether they were seasonal workman or not, disputed - S....