REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

RESERVED ON: 12.08.2026

DELIVERED ON: 19.08.2026

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA

WPA 16269 OF 2026

PANKAJ KUMAR GIRI

- VERSUS –

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Appearance:

Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Ld. Advocate.

Mr. Bidish Ghosh, Ld. Advocate.

Mr. Uttam Kumar Kamila, Ld. Advocate.

Mr. Maitryee Maiti, Ld. Advocate.

….. for the Applicant/Petitioner

REPORTABLE

Page 2 of 35

Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Priyankar Saha, Ld. Advocate.

Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Ld. Advocate.

... for the Respondent no. 5 to 9

Mr. Avishek Guha, Ld. Advocate.

Mr. Subjajit Das, Ld. Advocate.

... for the Respondent no. 3 and 4 (LICI)

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.:

1. The writ petition has been carried within a very short conspectus.

The only issue raised by the petitioner is whether he could have

been transferred from his present post in West Bengal to the Tezpur

area office in Assam of the respondent no. 2.

2. On this narrow point, the issue could have been resolved without

much ado.

3. The points to be considered would be whether there is a prevalent

transfer policy and if the petitioner’s transfer is in breach of such

REPORTABLE

Page 3 of 35

policy and whether the petitioner’s transfer was discriminatory in any

manner.

4. The respondent has raised a more fundamental issue. It is this

fundamental issue that calls for a detailed deliberation. According to

Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

respondent, respondent no. 2 is not at all a body that can be termed

a State instrumentality or qualifies as a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

5. Therefore, prior to considering whether the petitioner’s transfer is

sustainable or not, this court would have to deliberate and come to a

finding regarding the status of respondent no. 2. The status is,

primarily, to ascertain whether respondent no. 2 can be construed as

an instrumentality amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court.

6. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned senior advocate appearing for the LIC

(HFL), made the following submissions to buttress his case

that the said respondent cannot be construed as a body under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India:-

REPORTABLE

Page 4 of 35

a. Of the total of thirteen directors on the board of

directors of Respondent No. 2, only three are

nominated by LIC.

b. There is no financial control of any sort by LIC or

LIC(HFL). LIC(HFL) arranges its own finances as

will appear from Annexure B of the extracts of the

corporate information of the company which

clearly States that the mode of fund raising of

LIC(HFL) is private placement and public issue,

rights issue, preferential issue and other modes.

c. The finance of Respondent No. 2 as per its

Statement of utilization is clear and unequivocal

inasmuch as the same is used for private purpose

only. The same has also been demonstrated from

page 89 of the bunch of documents.

d. The memorandum of articles merely states that the

company (Respondent No. 2) is entitled to deal

with the government or any of its limbs on

commercial terms and in a similar manner as it

REPORTABLE

Page 5 of 35

would deal with any other private concern. None of

the clauses in the memorandum or articles of

association establish the fact that the funding of

Respondent No. 2 would be drawn from the

government or from LIC or from any other limb of

the government. Thus, there is no financial

dependence of Respondent No. 2 on the LIC or

on the government.

e. The mere fact that the company is an associate of a

government company such as the LIC by itself

would not bring such a company within the purview

of State as intended by Article 12 of the

Constitution. The Respondent No. 2 is involved in

the business of giving loans to home buyers, which

cannot be construed as a public duty or a public

function to bring it within the domain of “any other

authority for the purpose of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India”.

f. He has placed reliance on the decision of Balmer

Lawrie and Company Limited v. Partha Sarathi

REPORTABLE

Page 6 of 35

Sen Roy and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 345,

particularly paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 thereof to

establish that mere regulatory control is insufficient

to bring a company/corporation within the domain

of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In fact, it

has to be seen whether the company is engaged in

any sort of business activity over which it has

monopoly and is subject to administrative,

financial, and functional control of the government.

g. He has also placed reliance on S. Shobha v.

Muthoot Finance Ltd., reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 177 to establish that to ascertain

whether or not a corporation can be termed as a

State under Article 12, it would have to overcome

and pass the functional test as laid down in this

decision.

h. He has placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2026

SCC OnLine SC 583 (Ram Chandra Choudhary v.

Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd.).

REPORTABLE

Page 7 of 35

7. Mr. Avishek Guha, learned advocate appearing for

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has made the following

submissions: -

i. There is a distinct difference between a company

which can be called an associate company and one

which is a subsidiary. This distinction has been

earmarked in the Companies Act, 2013.

ii. The definition of an associate company as found in

Section 2(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 makes it

clear that a company can be called an associate

company when 30 per cent of its shares are held by

the other company.

iii. Subsidiary, on the other hand, has been defined in

Section 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 whereby

and whereunder it has been Stated in no uncertain

terms that the holding company has to be able to

control the composition of the board of directors

or exercise or control more than half (½) of the

REPORTABLE

Page 8 of 35

total voting power of the subsidiary either on its

own or together with other subsidiaries.

iv. In the present case, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 held

a mere 45.24% share which does not grant any

controlling power to the said Respondent Nos. 3

and 4.

v. In fact, there is no mode or manner by which

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 can control Respondent

No. 2, as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 only have three

nominee directors on the board of Respondent

No. 2 out of the total of 13 on the board. Thus,

there is no administrative control insofar as

Respondent No. 2 is concerned.

vi. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 is also

clear and unequivocal as it is clear that the LIC is

engaged only in the business of life insurance.

Thus, LIC(HFL) not being in the business of life

insurance, does not fall within the business domain

of LIC.

REPORTABLE

Page 9 of 35

vii. He has placed reliance on a decision of the

Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in

the case of Manoj K. Badal v. Union of India and

Ors. (Writ Petition No. 18485 of 2023), whereby

and whereunder it has been held in no uncertain

terms that a similar company which is a housing

company of the Canara Bank could not be

construed as being controlled by the Canara Bank

and therefore does not fall within the domain of

Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

8. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in

support of the issue that a writ petition is maintainable against

Respondent No. 2, has made the following arguments: -

a. He has referred to the Memorandum of

Association of the Respondent No. 2. He has

placed reliance on clauses 1, 9, 12, 16, 34, 36, 52,

53, 56, 58, 102 and 104 of the Memorandum of

Association.

REPORTABLE

Page 10 of 35

b. The sum and substance of these articles, according

to him, is that the business of Respondent No. 2 is

such that it is bound by governmental norms and

therefore within the purview of governmental

control.

c. He has also placed reliance on articles 138, 139,

143 of the Articles of Association. According to

him, these articles clearly establish that the LIC has

a deep and pervasive control over the affairs of

Respondent No. 2 by virtue of holding more than

33 per cent of the issued equity share capital of the

Company. Thus, LIC is entitled to

appoint/nominate at least 3 of the total number of

directors.

d. This, therefore, establishes a deep and pervasive

control of Respondent No. 2 by LIC.

e. LIC being a body under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, exercising deep and

pervasive control over the affairs of Respondent

REPORTABLE

Page 11 of 35

No. 2, is a clear indication that Respondent No. 2

itself is also a body against which a writ petition is

maintainable.

f. By virtue of the afore stated facts, Mr. Ghosh has

argued that the affairs and management are

completely controlled by the LIC which is a State

under Article 12 and therefore consequently, so is

Respondent No. 2.

g. Mr. Ghosh has placed reliance on the following

cases:

i. WPA No. 5633 of 2020, Dr. Arup

Kumar Bhaumik v. The State of West

Bengal and Ors.

ii. WA No. 904 of 2022 in the case of

Vivek V and Anr. v. LIC Housing

Finance Limited and Ors.

REPORTABLE

Page 12 of 35

iii. Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited

v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and Ors,

reported in (2013) 8 SCC 345.

iv. WP(C) No. 788 of 2026 in the case of

Nisant Aanand v. LIC Housing Finance

Ltd. and Ors.

9. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and considered the

decisions relied upon by them as well as gone through the

documents on record.

10. The law on the subject has evolved over a period of time and is now

well-settled.

11. Its genesis can be traced from the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh

Raghuvanshi reported in (1975) 1 SCC 421. In this judgment, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court enlarged the scope of the term ‘other

authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The

principles laid down in this judgment may be summarized as

follows:-

REPORTABLE

Page 13 of 35

a. Statutory corporations performing public functions were

brought within the scope of the definition of ‘State,’

especially in an evolving country like India, where such a

Welfare State carries out commercial activities through a

corporation. Hence, a corporation can also be an

instrumentality or agency of the Government.

b. Not all State endeavors through corporations qualify as

‘State undertakings’ and hence fall within the definition of

‘State.’ Relevant considerations were enumerated in the

authoritative insights in Justice Mathew’s concurring

decision, which were noted.

c. The relevant criteria include:-

a. Financial assistance;

b. State control over management of such

corporation;

c. Monopoly status conferred by the State and the

business conducted by it;

REPORTABLE

Page 14 of 35

d. Public importance of the functions and nature of

the business;

e. Whether the corporation constitutes an arm of

the Government.

12. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of

India, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, Justice Bhagwati supported and

further expanded on the principles laid down in Sukhdev Singh. The

parameters for determining whether a corporation is an

instrumentality of the State were reiterated as follows:-

i. The entire share capital is held by the Government.

ii. The corporation receives sufficient financial assistance

from the State.

iii. The corporation enjoys a State-conferred monopoly.

iv. There is deep and pervasive Government control over

the affairs, administration, and management of the

corporation.

REPORTABLE

Page 15 of 35

v. The functions discharged by the corporation are of public

importance and closely related to governmental functions.

vi. A department of the Government has been transferred to

the corporation.

13. In 1981, in the case of Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi,

reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722, the Supreme Court laid down six

indicia for deciding whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of

the State:-

a. Entire share capital held by the Government.

b. Financial assistance meeting almost the entire expenditure.

c. Monopoly status conferred by the State.

d. Deep and pervasive State control.

e. Public functions closely related to governmental functions.

f. Transfer of a Government department to the corporation.

REPORTABLE

Page 16 of 35

g. The Court also held that none of these tests is conclusive.

14. In 2002, in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of

Chemical Biology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111 the issues decided

in Sukhdev Singh were reconsidered.

i. The Supreme Court clarified that the real issue was

whether the Government exercises financial, functional,

and administrative domination over the body or

corporation.

ii. Mere regulatory control or ownership is insufficient; the

control must be deep and pervasive, and the corporation

must be financially dominated by the Government. Only

when these parameters are fulfilled can a corporation be

considered an instrumentality of the Government.

15. While analyzing these cases, the Supreme Court in Balmer Lawrie &

Co. Ltd. Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 345,

Stated:-

a. The President of India appoints whole-time Directors.

REPORTABLE

Page 17 of 35

b. The Central Government exercises administrative control

through the Ministry of Petroleum.

c. Major policy decisions require Government approval.

d. The company submits regular performance reports to the

Government.

e. Pay scales, appointments, reservation policies, and

operational matters are governed by Government

directives.

f. The cumulative effect of these factors establishes deep

and pervasive Government control, making the company

an instrumentality of the State under Article 12.

g. The Court emphasized that all these parameters must be

considered collectively before concluding that a

corporation is an ‘instrumentality’ or ‘body’ of the State.

Mere ownership or regulation alone is not sufficient.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upon considering all its earlier

decisions, in S Sobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. reported in (2025)

REPORTABLE

Page 18 of 35

SCC online SC 177 has formulated a test to ascertain whether

institution can be regarded as an instrumentality against which an

application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

maintainable or not. The parameters of this test as formulated are set

out herein:-

i. For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an

instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been

entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or

closely associated therewith by being of public importance

or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence

Governmental.

ii. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India may be maintainable against (i) the State

Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an

instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which

is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run

substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body

discharging public duty or positive obligation of public

nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to

REPORTABLE

Page 19 of 35

discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to

perform such a statutory function.

iii. Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot

Finance Ltd, with which the Court was concerned is duty

bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by

the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs

in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory

measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a

participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the

company.

iv. A private company carrying on banking business as

Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying

on any public function or public duty.

v. Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or

authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast

upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional

cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a

public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or

REPORTABLE

Page 20 of 35

statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its

public duty.

vi. Merely because a statute or a rule having the force of a

statute requires a company or some other body to do a

particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a

statutory body.

vii. If a private body is discharging a public function and the

denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty

imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be

enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either

statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is

immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law

element in such action.

viii. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30,

p.682, "a public authority is a body not necessarily a county

council, municipal corporation or other local authority

which has public statutory duties to perform, and which

performs the duties and carries out its transactions for the

benefit of the public and not for private profit". There

REPORTABLE

Page 21 of 35

cannot be any general definition of public authority or

public action. The facts of each case decide the point.

17. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while deciding the case

of Ram Chandra Choudhary (supra), has held in no uncertain terms

that “the mere existence of regulatory or supervisory control,

howsoever extensive, is not determinative. Such control must be of a

degree that fundamentally alters the character of the body.”

18. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Federal

Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733,

it has been unequivocally held that the business of banking is not a

public function even though such a bank may be bound by the

guidelines and regulations of the Reserve Bank of India.

19. The decision of the Kerala High Court on which the petitioner has

placed reliance is in WA No. 904 of 2022. In this decision, the LIC

(HFL) respondent no. 2 herein has been construed as falling within

the realm of Article 12 of the Constitution only by virtue of the fact

that LIC held 45.24% shares in LIC (HFL). The decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed hereinbefore have not been

considered. In fact, the said judgement was passed on August 12,

REPORTABLE

Page 22 of 35

2025, without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in S Sobha (supra). Thus, with all due respect, this

Court is bound by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

particularly S. Shobha (supra) and Ram Chandra Choudhary

(Supra).

20. The decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Nisant Aanand

(supra) has considered the question of LIC(HFL) being a State

under Article 12. The learned Single Judge stopped short of

deciding this issue.

21. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Dr. Arup Kumar

Bhaumik (supra) is absolutely in line with the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. I most humbly and respectfully

agree with the decision.

22. The decision proceeds to hold that an organization such as the

respondent authority concerned therein was an educational

institution so as to fall within the expansive definition of the State

under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that

an educational institution is engaged in discharging a public duty,

REPORTABLE

Page 23 of 35

which cannot be equated with the nature of work being done by the

respondent No. 2 herein.

23. In that particular case, the Regulation (Regulation 21) specified that

the organization would be governed according to the service rules,

administrative rules, academic rules and financial rules of the society.

It was clearly held, in no uncertain terms, that the State Government

retains the power to appoint the members of the society. It was also

held that none of the board members had any independent existence

and owed their membership in the society to the pleasure of the

State. It was held that the State exercises deep and pervasive control

insofar as this institution is concerned.

24. Therefore, on the facts of the case, the particular institution in

question herein is a completely differently situated body as

compared to the institution in the case of Dr. Arup Kumar Bhaumik

(supra).

25. It is in the context of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, that it has to be considered whether the writ petition

is maintainable against LIC (HFL)?

REPORTABLE

Page 24 of 35

26. The mere fact that LIC, being a "State" under Article 12, has a

substantial shareholding in LIC Housing Finance Ltd.) and, by virtue

of the Articles of Association, possesses the power to appoint,

nominate or remove directors, does not ipso facto render LIC(HFL)

a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

27. At the outset, it is necessary to distinguish between corporate control

arising from the incidence of shareholding and constitutional control

sufficient to attract Article 12. The powers conferred upon LIC

under the Articles of Association to appoint or remove directors are

exercised in its capacity as the holding company and the single largest

shareholder (45.24%). Such powers are ordinary incidence of

corporate ownership recognised by company law and are intended to

enable the larger company to supervise the affairs of its associate and

protect its investment. Corporate ownership, merely by its presence

is not equivalent to the deep and pervasive governmental control

contemplated under Article 12.

28. Indeed, under Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013, a

subsidiary of a Government company is itself classified as a

"Government company". However, this statutory classification

operates only for the purposes of the Companies Act. It does not

REPORTABLE

Page 25 of 35

enlarge the constitutional definition of "State" under Article 12. The

constitutional enquiry remains independent and is governed

exclusively by the principles evolved by the Supreme Court.

However, it does not refer to an associate company at all.

29. This distinction was lucidly explained in Som Prakash Rekhi v.

Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 449], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Courtof India recognised that a Government company possesses a

separate juristic personality and observed that, for the purposes of

company law, "a government company has a distinct personality

which cannot be confused with the State." The Court nevertheless

clarified that the existence of a separate corporate personality is not

conclusive for Article 12. The Court must pierce the corporate form

and examine the real character of the entity to determine whether it

is, in substance, an instrumentality or agency of the State. Thus,

while corporate personality does not by itself exclude Article 12,

neither does Government ownership or Government-company status

automatically attract it. What is required is an independent

constitutional examination of the entity itself.

30. The Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi,

reaffirming the principles emerging from R.D. Shetty v. International

REPORTABLE

Page 26 of 35

Airport Authority of India, laid down the relevant indicators for

determining whether a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of

the State.

31. The Supreme Court reiterated this position in Balmer Lawrie & Co.

Ltd. v. ParthaSarathi Sen Roy, where it held that the determination

of whether a company is amenable to writ jurisdiction depends upon

the cumulative evaluation of several factors, including whether the

entire share capital of the company is held by the Government;

whether its administration is in the hands of a Board of Directors

appointed by the Government; and, significantly, even if the Board

of Directors has been appointed by the Government, whether it is

completely free from governmental control in the discharge of its

functions. The very formulation of this test demonstrates that the

appointment of directors by the Government is not, by itself,

determinative of Article 12 status. If such appointment were

conclusive, there would have been no necessity for the Supreme

Court to proceed further and enquire whether the Board,

notwithstanding such appointment, enjoys functional autonomy in

the discharge of its duties.

REPORTABLE

Page 27 of 35

32. One of the primary endeavours of the petitioner in terming

Respondent No. 2 as an entity under Article 12 of the Constitution

of India has been to establish the deep and pervasive control of LIC

over the affairs of Respondent No. 2. The consistent stand of the

petitioner has been that there is deep and pervasive control exercised

by LIC in the affairs of Respondent No. 2 by way of demonstrating

that Respondent No. 2 is a subsidiary of LIC in the following

manner:-

a. Control over its board of directors.

b. Control over the shareholding of the company.

c. Financial control.

d. Control in the business affairs and day-to-day

management of Respondent No. 2.

33. In order to deal with this issue, it will be appropriate to ascertain the

status of Respondent No. 2 vis-a-vis LIC. Section 2(6) of the

Companies Act, 2013 defines an associate company. An associate

company in relation to another company has been defined as a

REPORTABLE

Page 28 of 35

company in relation to which that “other company” has significant

influence. Significant influence, in turn, has been explained as

control of at least 20 per cent of the voting power or control of

participation in business decisions under an agreement.

34. Section 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 defines a subsidiary

company in relation to the other company which has been termed as

the “holding company”. The holding company should have control

over the composition of the board of directors and exercise or

control more than ½ of the total voting power either on its own or

together with one or more of its subsidiaries.

35. In the instant case, undoubtedly, LIC controls 45.24 per cent of the

total voting power of Respondent No. 2. There is no control or

participation in the business decisions of Respondent No. 2 under

any agreement or arrangement.

36. There is no control by LIC over the composition of the board of

directors of Respondent No. 2, as it merely has the right to

nominate/appoint 3 of the 13 members on the board of Respondent

No. 2. There is also no control over one-half (½) of the total voting

REPORTABLE

Page 29 of 35

power in Respondent No. 2, falling short of one-half by a significant

percentage.

37. Therefore, as it stands at present, Respondent No. 2 is at best an

associate of LIC.

38. Every “other company” ordinarily exercises varying degrees of

supervisory control over the composition of the board of its

associate. Such control is an incidence of corporate contract and is

exercised in the capacity of a shareholder. If such shareholder

control were treated as conclusive, every subsidiary of every

Government company would automatically become a "State" under

Article 12. Such a proposition would render ineffective the

constitutional tests painstakingly evolved in R.D. Shetty (supra), Ajay

(supra), Hasia (supra), Som Prakash Rekhi (supra), Pradeep Kumar

Biswas (supra), and Balmer Lawrie(supra), all of which require an

independent examination of the subsidiary's own financial, functional

and administrative relationship with the Government.

39. Therefore, the question is not whether LIC possesses the power to

appoint or remove directors of LIC(HFL). The real constitutional

question is whether, notwithstanding its separate corporate identity,

REPORTABLE

Page 30 of 35

LIC(HFL) itself is so financially, functionally and administratively

dominated by Government, and so deeply and pervasively controlled

by Government in the discharge of its affairs, that it has ceased to

function as an independent corporate entity and has become, in

substance, an instrumentality or agency of the State. Unless this

cumulative constitutional test is satisfied, LIC(HFL) cannot be

treated as "State" merely because LIC happens to be a "State" or

because the “other company” exercises the ordinary incidence of

shareholder control recognised by company law.

40. LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India) is undoubtedly a State-

backed body, with the Government holding 96.5% of its shares,

exercising deep and pervasive control. LIC’s business, which involves

insuring life, is part of the welfare activities of the State. LIC holds

45.24% shares in respondent no. 2.

41. Respondent no. 2’s main business is providing housing loans, which

is a commercial activity. It is a listed company. It has a Board of

Directors, and its affairs are managed independently, and not under

any specific Act nor is it subject to Government domination or

control. Although LIC holds over 45% shares, this does not mean

that the State exercises any deep or pervasive control over the

REPORTABLE

Page 31 of 35

respondent no. 2. Its activities are akin to banking, which is a

commercial activity regulated by the Reserve Bank of India.

42. Respondent no. 2 was incorporated under the Companies Act and

operates independently, governed by its Memorandum and Articles

of Association. Its affairs are not controlled by the Government in a

manner that qualifies it as an ‘instrumentality of the State.’ The

appointment and removal of Directors are governed by its own rules,

and the company’s operations are not dominated by Government

control.

43. The business of the respondent no. 2 is not such that it has a duty

towards the public at large. The duty of the respondent no. 2 is

towards its customers which may include borrowers who avail the

loan facility for the purpose of housing. The respondent no. 2 does

not have the authority to pass any order or take any action affecting

the rights of the public at large.

44. The binding nature of its action is limited to its customers. The

functions of the respondent no. 2 are not akin to any governmental

function.

REPORTABLE

Page 32 of 35

45. Applying the ‘function test’, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 does

not fall within any of the institutions against whom the writ petition is

maintainable. The respondent no. 2 is not a company which is

financed and owned by the State nor is it a body run substantially on

State funding. The respondent no. 2 is not a private body discharging

public duty or any obligation of public nature. Thus, the respondent

on the function test does not qualify as a body against whom the writ

petition is maintainable. Since the respondent no. 2 does not qualify

as a public authority nor does it come within the fold of any of the

parameters set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S

Sobha (Supra), this writ petition against the respondent no. 2 is not

maintainable.

46. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in various decisions, which have been extensively discussed

hereinbefore, the following conclusions are inevitable:-

i. LIC(HFL) is an associate company of Life Insurance

Corporation of India, it is not a subsidiary.

ii. LIC, with 45.24 percent of the shareholding in LIC(HFL)

and with a right to nominate three directors on its board,

REPORTABLE

Page 33 of 35

which consists of 13, cannot be said to have any

supervisory control over the affairs of LIC(HFL). This

control is not deep and pervasive nor does it extend to

control over the day-to-day affairs of LIC(HFL).

iii. Merely because LIC is a government company, the power

to nominate directors does not grant supervisory control

over any of its associates and thus, does not render such

an associate, a government company.

iv. LIC(HFL) conducts its own business with its own money

and is not dependent on LIC in any manner whatsoever.

v. LIC(HFL) is a private body engaged in carrying on its

business as per its memorandum and articles of

association without in any manner being engaged in a

business which can be termed as a public function. The

activities of LIC(HFL) are completely commercial in

nature and do not fall within the benchmark parameter of

a monopoly business as a limb of the government.

REPORTABLE

Page 34 of 35

vi. LIC(HFL) is a company which is autonomous, driven by

its commercial pursuit and guided by the decision of its

board of directors who do not owe any financial,

administrative or functional dependence on LIC or any

other government authority. It is strictly guided by its

internal governance, absolutely dependent for its affairs

on the decision taken by the board of directors.

vii. Thus, LIC(HFL), not carrying out any public duty, cannot

as a private body be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court.

viii. Clearly, LIC(HFL) does not qualify the function test as

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of S. Shobha (supra).

47. Having held as aforestated, the question of entertaining the writ

petition or considering the prayers made by the petitioner does not

arise. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

REPORTABLE

Page 35 of 35

48. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall

be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon

compliance of all formalities.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)