- (1.)In these batches of writ petitions the order dated 11th March, 1994 terminating the services of the: petitioners without showing cause has been assailed. Common questions of facts and law has arisen in all the Civil Rules are the same and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)I have heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 344 of 1994. Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 348 of 1994, Mr. Manichandra Oinam, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 496 of 1994 and Mr. Ashok Potshangbam, counsel for the respondents in all the Civil Rules.
(3.)Mr. Ashok Potshangbam raises the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. According to Mr. Ashok the Manipur Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. (M.T.D.C. Ltd.) is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act and as such it is not a state or instrumentalities of the state within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. According to him, therefore, any action taken by the Corporation is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In this connection, the counsel has taken me to various provisions contained in Memorandum of Articles of Association of the Company. He has particularly referred to Article 4(1) which says that the Company is a private Company. Article 5 which deals with authorised share capital of the Company, Article 51 which deals with the power of the Government with the sanction of the Company in general meeting, Article 56 which deals with the borrowing powers of the Directors of the Company, Article 57 which deals with the powers of the Directors to secure the payment or re-payment of the Company, Article 61 which deals with the powers of Directors to call extra ordinary general meeting, Article 74 & 75 which deals with the constitution of finance Committee of the Company and Article 87(a) which deals with the power of the Directors to make appointment of officers of the Company, According to Mr. Ashok, the aforesaid Articles of Association would clearly show that the Board of Directors control the Company and the state has no authority over the control of the Company and as such the Company is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.