# K. K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGE & ORS - **Citation:** [2014] 14 S.C.R. 892 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2014-12-18 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11499 of 2014 - **Bench:** J. Chelameswar, A. K. Sikri - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-k-saksena-v-international-commission-on-irrigationand-drainage-ors-29682 - **Pages:** 37 ## Headnote Constitution of India : c Aits. 12 and 2.26-Scope of- Writ petition u/Ait. 226Against respondent-Commission - Challenging the order terminating the services of the appellant"employee - Whether maintainable - High Couit held that it was not maintainable because the respondent-Corporation was not D a 'State' u/Ait. 12 and also because the actions of the respondent were not amenable to judicial review- On appeal, held: Even if a person or authority is a 'State'within meaning of Ait. 12, a writ petition would not lie to enforce private law rights- If a person or authority does not come within the sweep E of Ait. 12, but is performing public duty, writ petition lies - However, such private body should either run substantially on State funding or discharge public duty/positive obligation of public nature or is under liability to discharge any function under any statute to compel it to perform such a statutory F . function - Even if a body performing public duty is amenable . · to writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review, but only those which have public e1ement therein - Contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review - The G respondent-Commission in the present case is not funded by the Government- The functions and duties of respondentCommission also do not come within the meaning of 'public · functions' and 'public duties' to bring the Commission within the ambit of expression 'other authority' in Ait. 226 - Even H otherwise the impugned action of terminating the services of 892 K. K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 893 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE the appellant does not involve public Jaw element and no A 'public Jaw rights' have accrued in favour of the appellant- · Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable - Service Law- Termination of service. Arts. 12 and 226 - Power under Art. 226 - Scope ofHe/d: The power of High Court u/Art. 226 is not limited to the B authority which is qualified to be a 'State' u!Art. 12- The term 'authority' in Art. 226 has a wider meaning than the same vety term used in Art. 12- The power is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights, but also 'for any other purpose'. Words and Phrases - 'Authority' - Connotation of, in C the context of Arts. 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India - Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As per the definition contained in Arti~le D 12 of the Constitution the 'State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each State as well as "all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India". If such an autht>,rity E violates the furidamental right or other legal rights of any perso_n or citizen (as the case may be), writ petition cary be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and seeking appropriate direction, order or writ. [Para 30] F [916-B-C; 916-D-E] 2.1 However, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of the High Court is not limited to the Government or authority which qualifies to be a 'State' under Article 12. Power is extended to issue directions, orders or writs G "to any person or authority". Again, this power of issuing directions, orders or writs is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill, but also 'for any other purpose'. Thus, power of the High Court takes H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A within its sweep more "authorities" than stipulated in B · Article 12 and the subject matter which can be dealt with under this Article is also wider in scope. [Para 30) [916-E-G] Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691 : 1989 (2) SCR 697 ·relied on. 2.2 If a person or authority is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, adm ## Text _Characters 0–39,987 of 71,664. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._ A B [2014] 14 S.C.R. 892 . K. K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11499 of 2014) DECEMBER 18, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] Constitution of India : c Aits. 12 and 2.26-Scope of- Writ petition u/Ait. 226Against respondent-Commission - Challenging the order terminating the services of the appellant"employee - Whether maintainable - High Couit held that it was not maintainable because the respondent-Corporation was not D a 'State' u/Ait. 12 and also because the actions of the respondent were not amenable to judicial review- On appeal, held: Even if a person or authority is a 'State'within meaning of Ait. 12, a writ petition would not lie to enforce private law rights- If a person or authority does not come within the sweep E of Ait. 12, but is performing public duty, writ petition lies - However, such private body should either run substantially on State funding or discharge public duty/positive obligation of public nature or is under liability to discharge any function under any statute to compel it to perform such a statutory F . function - Even if a body performing public duty is amenable . · to writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review, but only those which have public e1ement therein - Contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review - The G respondent-Commission in the present case is not funded by the Government- The functions and duties of respondentCommission also do not come within the meaning of 'public · functions' and 'public duties' to bring the Commission within the ambit of expression 'other authority' in Ait. 226 - Even H otherwise the impugned action of terminating the services of 892 K. K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 893 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE the appellant does not involve public Jaw element and no A 'public Jaw rights' have accrued in favour of the appellant- · Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable - Service Law- Termination of service. Arts. 12 and 226 - Power under Art. 226 - Scope ofHe/d: The power of High Court u/Art. 226 is not limited to the B authority which is qualified to be a 'State' u!Art. 12- The term 'authority' in Art. 226 has a wider meaning than the same vety term used in Art. 12- The power is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights, but also 'for any other purpose'. Words and Phrases - 'Authority' - Connotation of, in C the context of Arts. 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India - Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As per the definition contained in Arti~le D 12 of the Constitution the 'State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each State as well as "all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India". If such an autht>,rity E violates the furidamental right or other legal rights of any perso_n or citizen (as the case may be), writ petition cary be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and seeking appropriate direction, order or writ. [Para 30] F [916-B-C; 916-D-E] 2.1 However, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of the High Court is not limited to the Government or authority which qualifies to be a 'State' under Article 12. Power is extended to issue directions, orders or writs G "to any person or authority". Again, this power of issuing directions, orders or writs is not limited to enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill, but also 'for any other purpose'. Thus, power of the High Court takes H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A within its sweep more "authorities" than stipulated in B · Article 12 and the subject matter which can be dealt with under this Article is also wider in scope. [Para 30) [916-E-G] Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691 : 1989 (2) SCR 697 ·relied on. 2.2 If a person or authority is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a C writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. However, even in such cases writ would not lie to enforce private law rights. Reason is that private law is that part of a legal system which is a part of Common La~ that involves relationships between D individuals, such as law of contract or torts. Therefore, even if. writ petition would be maintainable against an authority, which is 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has to satisfy that action of such E an authority, which is challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law. [Para 38) [922-F-H; 923-A-C] F G H K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr. (1997) 3 SCC 571 : 1997 (2) SCR 368 ; Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657 : 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 421 ; Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao AIR 1953 SC 210: 1953' SCR 1144- relied on. G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 225 : 2003 (1) SCR 1174.; Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors. (2003) 10 sec 733 : 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 121 - referred to. K.K. SAKSENAv. INTERNATIONALCOMMISSION ON 895 IRRIGATIONAND DRAINAGE 2.3 On the other hand, even if a person or authority A does not come within the sweep of Article 12 of the Constitution, but is performing public duty, writ petition can lie and writ of mandamus or appropriate writ can be issued. However, such a private body st- -,uld either run substantially on State funding or discharge public duty/ B positive obligation of public nature or is under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. [Para 40] [923-F-H] ' 2.4 Even if a body performing public duty is C amenable to writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review. Only those decisions which · have public element therein can be judicially reviewed under writjurisdiction. [Para 43][926-E-F] The Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. /manual & ors. (1969) 1 sec 585 : 1969 ( 3 ) SCR 773 - relied on. D 2.5 There are three things that had to be identified while considering whether a public body with statutory E powers was exercising a public function amenable to judicial review or a private function. They are: (i) whether the defendant was a public body exercising statutory powers; (ii) whether the function being performed in the exercise of those powers was a public or a private one; F and (iii) whether the defendant was performing a public duty owed to the claimant in the particular ch:cumstances ,,. under consideration. [Para 44][927-B~C] ·,, 2.6 It is trite that contract of personafservice cannot be enforced. However, there are three exceptions to this G rule, namely: (i) when the employee is a public servant working under the Union of India or State; (ii) when such employee is employed by an authority/ body which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; and (iii) when such an employee is 'workmen' H 896. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A · within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raises a dispute regarding his termination by invoking the machinery under the said · Act. In the first two cases, the employment ceases to have private law character·and 'status' to such an B employment is attached. In the third category·of cases, it is the Industrial Disputes Act which confers jurisdiction on the labour court/industrial tribunal to grant reinstatement in case termination is found to be illegal. [Para 46][927-E-H] C 2.7 The High Court rightly opined that the respondent was not discharging any public function or public duty, which would make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. In the . present case, since the respondent is not funded by the D Government nor it is discharging any function under any statute. For determining the. character of the respondents, the focus has to be on the function discharged by it, namely, whether it is discharging any public duties. The functions incorporated in the MOA of E the respondent, namely, to encourage progress in design, construction, maintenance and operation of large and small irrigation works and canals etc., by itself would not make it a public duty cast on the respondent. The respondent is a private body ,~hich has no State F funding. Further, no liability under any statute is cast upon it to discharge the aforesaid fynction. The High Court is right in its observation that even when object of the respondent is to promote the development and application of certain aspects;'the same are voluntarily G undertaken and there is no obligation to discharge certain activities which are statutory or of public character. Eyen otherwise; it is clear that the impugned action does not involve public law elementand no 'public H K.K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 897 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE law rights' have accrued in favour of the appellant which A are infringed. [Paras 41, 42 and 47][924-B-C; 926-A-D; 928-A-B] Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1981) 1 sec 122 : 1981 (2) scR 79 ; Ramana Oayaram Sheffy v. International Airport B Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 : 1979 (3) SCR 1014 ; Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors. v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 (3) SCR 100 ; Mis. Zee Telefi/ms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) c 4 SCC 649 : 2005 (1) SCR 913-: referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 1981 (2) SCR 79 referred to. Para 14 1979 (3) SCR 1014 referred to. Para 14 D 2002 (3) SCR 100 referred to. Para 15 2005 (1) SCR 913 referred to. Para 16 1989 (2) SCR 697 relied on. Para 31 1997 (2) SCR 368 relied on. Para 33 E 2003 (1) SCR 1174 referred to. Para 34 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 121 referred to. Para 35 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 421 relied on. Para 36 1953 SCR 1144 relied on. Para 39 1969 (3) SCR 773 relied on. Para 43' F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11499of2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 25:04.2011 of the · High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 554 of 2006. G Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv., Piyush Sharma, K. G Mishra, Ad vs. for the Appellant. K. Radhakrishna, Sr.Adv., Ms.Asha G Nair, S.S. Rawat, Bharat Sangal, D. S. Mahra, I. Abenla Aier, Advs. for the H Respondents. 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By the impugned judgment dated April 25, 2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 554 of 2006, the 8 High Court has held that the writ petition against respondent No.1, namely, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (for short, 'ICID'), under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable as it is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. It has also held that its actions or not amenable C for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, either .. It resulted in dismissal of the said intra-court appeal, which was filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge rend.ered in the writ petition filed by the appellant taking the same view. The appellant even filed review petition seeking review of the judgment dated April 25, 2011, which met the D same fate as the said review petition was dismissed by the High Court by orders dated August 05, 2011. 3. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the issue ' . agitated before us pertains to the.maintainability of the writ E petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents herein. This has arisen in the following circumstances: 4. The appellant herein was appointed to the post of Secretary, ICID, vide letter of appointment dated January 03, F 1997. Pursuant to that letter, he joined the services in ICID on January 20, 1997. Thereafter, his services were terminated vide letter dated August 15, 1999, with immediate effect from · August 16, 1999, on the ground thatthe same were no longer required by the ICID. It was followed by a communication dated G August 27, 1999 whereby the appellant was given two cheques in the sum of 1 77,388/- and 1 98,141.50/- towards three months' basic pay in lieu of notice and the dues towards contributory provident fund respectively. It would be pertinent to note that . these dues were given pursuant to the request of the appellant H contained in his letter dated August 19, 1999 claiming three K.K. SAKS ENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 899 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE [A. K. SIKRI, J.] months' salary as per the rules as also payments for provident A fund. After receiving these cheques, the appellant requested for revocation of the order of termination, which was followed by reminders dated September 02, 1999 and October 16, 1999. As he did not receive any response to the aforesaid requests, he approached the High Court by filing writ petition B · under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the termination of his services by the ICID was an act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Plea of the appellant in this behalf was that the said order of termination was without C holding the inquiry and no reason was given to dispense with the said inquiry as well and, therefore, was in violation of ICID Employees Conduct Rules, 1967, particularly Rule 33(b) thereof, which mandates reason to be given for·· dispensing with the inquiry. D 5. In the writ petition, the appellant also specifically took the plea that ICID is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and further it is involved in performing public duty. It was averred that ICID is under the control of Government and the criteria and test set out for determining E whether a corporation or society is a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is satisfied inasmuch as ICID was established by the Central Government by giving a grant of 1 15,000/- in 1950; that there are instances when the Government officers had come on deputation to the society; F that the Central Government has been paying the subscription for administrative and other functions of ICID and, hence, the financial control rests with the Government; that the staffing pattern of the ICID is in accord with the line of the Government; that ICID has monopoly status since it is the only society G established by the Government of India to bring together information on irrigation from India and outside; that the Government provides to it irrigation related information generated in the country and uses public cost and also uses information pulled by it for Government irrigation works; and H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A that the President or Vice President in-charge of the central office of the society is a Government officer and the officer of the Central Government is ex-officio Secretary General, though he does not draw salary from ICID. Additional plea was taken · that in any case writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution B of India was maintainable even if ICID does not qualify to be a 'State' within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution· inasmuch as the term 'other authority' appearing in Article 226 was of much wider connotation and it would embrace within itself those authorities which discharge public functions or C public duty of great magnitude .. The appellant pleaded that going by the functions which.IC ID is discharging, it is apparent that these are public functions and, therefore, writ petition under ·Article 226 .. of the Constitution of India could be filed against it. 6. ICID filed its counter affidavit controverting the D aforesaid pleas taken by the appellant in his writ petition. The stand taken by the appellant was refuted by contending that ICID is neither a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor is it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of ·the Constitution. It was put forth that the said society does not E . fulfill the requisite tests which would bring it within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution inasmuch as the management of the affairs of the society is vested in an International Executive Council (IEC) consisting of office bearers and one duly appointed representative from each National Committee; F that the office bearers of ICID consist of one President, 9 Vice Presidents and 1 Secretary General and all the office bearers, except the Secretary General. who is the full-time office bearer appointed by IEC, are elected by majority of votes of the members of the said Council; that the representatives of the G World Bank, FAO, United National Educational, Scientific and . Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and International Irrigation Management Institute amongst others, have a place in the International Executive Council of ICID as permanent observers·; that the representatives of the World Bank, FAQ, H UNESCO and other related UN agencies also participate in K.K. SAKS ENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON . 901 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE [A. K. SIKRI, J.] the work and various activities of !CID; that !CID comprises A about 30 staff members in all and works under the general supervision of the Council and under the immediate direction of the President; that Clause 7.3 of the Constitution of ICID empowers the Secretary General to frame such rules and procedure as he considers necessary for governing the staff B and for the proper functioning of the central office in consultation with the staff committee; that the following of a staffing pattern by !CID in the line of the Central Government does r:iot bring th·e society under the control of the State; that !CID is an independently funded organization whose functions are C financed by subscriptions from several countries; and that deputation of some officers from the Government at certain times does not give it the character of a State. 7. Plea of the appellant regarding availability of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was opposed on the · D ground that !CID does not perform any public duty which would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction since its objects stimulate and promote the development and the application of the arts, sciences and techniques of engineering, agriculture, economics, ecology and social sciences in managing water E and land resources for irrigation, drainage, flood control and river training and for research in a more comprehensive manner adopting upto date techniques and its activities cannot be stated to be intrinsically.public in nature or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity. F 8. The order of termination was sought to be justified on merits as well, taking up the contention that the appellant was not performing the duties satisfactorily and, therefore, his services were dispensed with, as per the Rules arid, hence, no inquiry was necessary. Various other grounds were also G pleaded to justify the order of termination. 9. After hearing the arguments on either side, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold, without going into the question about the validity H • 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A of the termination of the appellant's services as he held that ICID is neither a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, nor is it discharging functions which will bring it within the ambit of public duty making it amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result, . B writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated January 17, 2006. As pointed out above, this view of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated April 25, 2011. In the process, the Division Bench has discussed the aspect of maintainability c on the touchstone of Article 12 as well as Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in great details. 10. Mr. DineshAgnani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, was candid in conceding that he was not joining issues insofar as the judgment of the High Court hold D ICID not to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus, this part of the judgment has been accepted by the appellant. However, the quintessence of the argument advanced by him; with great emphasis, was that ICID was performing public duty. He referred to the functions which ICID is discharging and made E a strenuous attempt to show that those functions would come within the ambit of public functions and the duties of ICID as public duty, which would bring it within the ambit of the expression 'other authority' appearing in Article 226 of the Constitution and making ICID amenable to the writ jurisdiction. F 1f. Because of the concession of the learned senior counsel, though we are absolved from undertaking any exercise on the character of ICID on the issue as to whether it is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution or not, nevertheless, we deem it appropriate to delve the manner in which this issue is G dealt with by the High Court. Reason for doing the same is that it will have some bearing on the other related issue which is the main brunt of the appellant's submissions. • 12. The High Court has referred to the provisions of the Constitution of ICID while embarking on the aforesaid H discussion and in this process it has noted as under: K.K. SAKS ENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 903 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE [A. K SIKRI, J.] "14 ... The preamble which occurs in Article 1 of the A Constitution of ICID reads as follows: "1.1 The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage is established as a Scientific, Technical, Professional, and Voluntary Not-for-Profit NonGovemmental International Organization (NGO-ONG), B dedicated, inter alia, to enhance the world-wide supply of food and fibre for all people by improving water and land management, and the productivity of irrigated and drained lands through the appropriate management of water, environment and the application of irrigation, C drainage and flood control techniques. 1.2 In the text of this Constitution, the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage is referred to as the Commission or as ICID (CllD in the French version) and among international authorities, as CID D (CllD)." 15. Article 3 deals with Membership. The basis of membership is as follows: "3.1 ICID consists of National Committees of E Participating Countries, on the basis of one National Committee for each such country. Where no National Committee exists, officers of government or of an institution or institutions effectively representing interests within the scope of the objects of the F Commission may participate in ICID activities. In such cases one officer shall be designated as Representative. 3.2 Any geographical area independently administered bf a sovereign government and having G interest in the activities of the Commission shall be eligible to participate in the activities of the Commission. Accordingly, in exceptional cases, the Council may, having regard to the coexistence of separate sovereign geographical areas or countries, · H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R. ·A accept the representation of the sovereign parts of a country by separate National Committees. In the case of a Federal System of government, or similar set-up, only one National Committee shall be recognized for membership in ICID." B 16. Article 4 deals with the composition of the national committees and its responsibility. c D E F G H 17. Article 5 deals with the International Executive Council. Clause 5.1 of Article 5 reads as follows: ' "5.1 The International Executive Council, hereinafter called the Council, the Executive Council or the IEC is vested with the manag'ement of the affairs of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.· 5.2 The Council shall consider all matters of policy which may be initiated or sponsored by any member National Committee or Office-Bearer or by the Management Board and may itself initiate and determine or otherwise advise and lay .down any matter of policy. The Central Office of ICID shall act as an instrument for carrying into effect all decisions taken by the Council. The Council shall also consider what action, if any, need be taken on the · recommendations or conclusions of the studies, experiments or discussions organized by the Commission. All matters affecting the executive or administrative functions and financial liabilities of ICID must come up before the Council and its decisions shall be conclusive." 18. Article 6 provides for the office-bearers. Clause 6.2 deals with the election of President and Vice-Presidents. Clause 6. 3.1 provides for the appointment of Secretary General. It is profitable to reproduce clause 6.3.1: "6.3.1 Nomination: The Secretary-General shall be nominated by the President, acting as Chairperson of the Management Board, and appointed by Council. K.K. SAKS ENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 905 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 19. Article 7 deals with Management. Clause 7 .1 deals A with Management Board: It is as follows: · "7 .1 The Council shall be assisted in the management of the affairs of the Commission by a Management Board composed of the President of ICID, who shall be the Chairperson, immediate past President of ICID B . (one year only), Chairpersons of the Permanent Technical Activities Committee, Permanent Finance Committee and Permanent Committee on Strategy Planning and Organizational Affairs and the SecretaryGeneral." C Clause 7.2 of Article 7 provides that the Central Officer shall be located in New Delhi, India and shall be maintained under the general provision of the Council and under the immediate direction of the President. Clause 7 .3.1 deals with financial manageme~t. D . 20. Article 10 provides for dues, subscriptions and funds. It is apposite to reproduce clauses 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, which read as follows: · "Annual Subscriptions E 10.1 In order to defray the cost of the activities of the Commission or for special purposes, the National Committees or representative organizations of participating countries shall regularly pay to the order of the Secretary-General annual subscriptions (in as F near the beginning of each calendar year as may be possible) on the basis pre-determined by the Council and taking into consideration, inter alia, the interest and the capacity to pay of the participating country. National Committees or representative organizations G of participating countries shall also pay such other special subscriptions as may be determined by the Council. 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A 10.2 For each Congress, regional conference, technical session, international workshop or such other international activity, the Council may, in consultation • with the National Committee of the host country, fix individual registration fees, or fees for participating B organizations. In addition, the portion of the proceeds that should accrue to the budget of the Central Office of the Commission from such events shall also be determined by the Council. c D E F G Funds 10.3 The Central Office shall be authorized to receive and to handle as funds of the Commission, any subscription, subvention or gift that may be made in the general interests of the objects of the Commission, or for specific research, special investigation or experimental work; and it may arrange, under general authority given by the Council, cooperative research, investigations or experimental work with other international organizations, properly qualified institutions, governmental or private, or with technical societies or associations." 21. Article 12 deals with dissolution and liquid~tion. Clause 12.1 deals with dissolution which reads as follows: "12.1 ICID may be declared dissolved only by a decision to be reached at a regular or a special meeting of the Councii and provided that at least twothirds of the total number of participating countries, whether represented at such a meeting of the Council or not, vote for dissolution." Clause 12.2 deals with liquidation and its procedure." 13. ICID has also framed its bye-laws which provide for election of office bearers, working bodies of ICID, permanent committees, role and membership, temporary working bodies, H International Executive Council and various other aspects. After K.K. SAKSENA v. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 907 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE [A. K. SIKRI, J.] taking note of the aforesaid provisions, the High Court while A coming to the conclusion that respondent No.1 is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, summed up the position in the following manner: "23. On a comprehensive survey of the Constitution of ICID and the bye-laws, we do not perceive that there is B either any control of the government either financially, functionally or administratively or it is dominated by any action of the government. We do not even remotely see that there is any kind of pervasive control. Some officers may be coming on deputation regard being had to the C character of the ICID or there may be initially a grant of Rs.15, 000/- in 1950 or some aid at times but that does not clothe it with the character and status of 'other authority' as understood under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we conclude and hold that ICID is not an D instrumentality of state or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India." 14. We may also like to point out that the aforesaid examination of the issue undertaken by the High Court is keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in catena E of judgments and the tests which are to be applied to arrive at the decision as to whether a particular authority can be termed as 'State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12. It took note of the Constitution Bench decision in Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.1, wherein the following F six tests were culled out from its e·arlier judgment in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors2: "(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of G the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p.507, para 14) 1(1981) 1 sec 122 '(1979) 3 sec 489 H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A B c D E (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (SCC p.508, para 15) (3) It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (SCC p.508, para 15) (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (SCC p.508, para 15) (5) If the functions of the corporation· of public importance and closely related to governmental Junctions, it would be a relevant factor in.classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p.509, para 16) ' . (6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor . ~ ' . supportive of this inference' of the corporation being an ,' If ' . - instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p.510, pa_ra 18)." · 15. The Court also took into consideration and referred_ . to the following passage from the judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors. v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & F Ors.3: G "40. The picture that·~ltimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a .State within the meaning of Article 12 .. The question in each case would be - whether in the light of the cum~lative facts as established, the body is finane