Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Now the issue remains as to whether the respondent- Company satisfies the test, namely, "existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality".

30. It is not in dispute in the present case that PSIDC holds 44.26% of share holdings in the respondent-Company. 37.35% shares are held by general public and balance is owned by financial institutions. The Board of Directors of the Company has been constituted in terms of the provisions of the Act, applicable for any public limited company. At present, out of nine Directors, three have been nominated by PSIDC, two by lending institutions and four by the share holders. Merely because some of the Directors are government servants will not lead to the conclusion that the Company, in which their services have been transferred, will amount to be a State or any other authority amenable to writ jurisdiction. There is no day-to-day control of the Government or even the PSIDC in the working of the Company as it is managed by its own Board of Directors or the employees employed by it independently."

8. In furtherance of his argument to the effect that the deep and pervasive control of the Government was vested in PACL, Mr. Vivek also referred to the following features:-

a) When a move of disinvestment of 44.26% equity share holding of PSIDC in PACL was initiated in July, 2010, in the document titled as 'request for qualification' prepared by the Directorate of Disinvestment, Government of Punjab, it was accepted that PACL is a company promoted by PSIDC, a company wholly owned by the Punjab Government. This document also clearly states that the PSIDC intended to disinvest its entire stake of 44.26% in PACL alongwith 'full management control through competitive bids'. He thus submitted that full management control of PSIDC in PACL has been accepted in the said document.

f) He submitted that so many exemptions were granted to PACL in this meeting.

On the basis of aforesaid material, it was sought to argue that the PACL was nothing but an 'Authority' under the Articles of Association.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, per-contra, submitted that as per the judgment in Pardeep Kumar Biswas (supra), it was necessary that there had to be financial, administrative as well as functional control of the Government in order to bring a particular body within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. His submission was that the PACL did not meet all these tests which were considered cumulatively as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Learned Counsel heavily relied upon Articles 129(a), 159 and 172 of the Articles of Association in this behalf. He submitted that as per Article 129(a), the PSIDC was entitled to nominate three Directors on the Board of Directors of the Company only so long as it hold shares not less than 26% and Article 159 gives powers to the PSIDC to appoint the Managing Director of the company. Further Article 172 describe the manner in which the Managing Director(s) or whole time Director(s) were to be appointed and this power was given to the Board of Directors subject to the provisions of Sections 269, 316 and 317 and other applicable provisions of the Company Act. He also traced the history of PACL by pointing out that no doubt in 1975, the PACL was established as 100% subsidiary of PSIDC. However, in the year 1983, 40.18 lacs shares were sold by the PSIDC, likewise in the year 1994 5 lacs more shares hold by PSIDC in PACL were off-loaded and at present share holding was less than 50% i.e. 44.26%. He also submitted that the Chairman was holding the office on full time basis. Likewise, the Directors nominated by the PSIDC in the Board of PACL were not full time Directors and it was only the Managing Director sent by the PSIDC to PACL who was whole time.

20. While examining this issue we have also to keep in mind the cumulative effect of various considerations and to see whether the PACL is functionally and administratively dominated or is under the control of the Government.

21. No doubt, as per the provisions of Article 129(a) of the Articles of Association of the PACL, PSIDC is entitled to nominate three Directors out of 9 Directors on the Board of Directors of PACL so long as it holds shares not less than 26% and Article 159 gives PSIDC power to appoint the Managing Director of the PACL as well. However, such a power is generally given to the majority share holders and it cannot be said that merely because of this PSIDC has control over the affairs of the PACL and through PSIDC the control is vested with the State Government. Three Directors nominated by PSIDC still remains in minority having regard to the number of Directors in the Board of Directors of PACL. No doubt, the Managing Director is sent by the PSIDC and normally he is an IAS officer. He is even full time Managing Director of PACL. But merely because of this reason, it cannot be said that it is a statutory character of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. At this stage, we would like to reproduce para No. 39 of the judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (supra) to the following effect:-