- (1.) THE matter comes up before this court on the stay application.
(2.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked as to how the writ petition was maintainable against M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and as to whether the said company was covered within the definition of the State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition was maintainable against M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited on the ground that it is a company regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. I am however of the considered opinion that M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is a private company and is not a State or other authority covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India amenable to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent company is neither financially functionally nor administratively controlled by the government. In facts the government has no functional and administrative control what of pervasive control. The regulation of the respondent company under the provisions of the 1956 Act, (where under the company is incorporated) or otherwise is only statutory. The respondent company is only regulated under the statutes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology [(2002) 5 SCC 111] has held that mere regulatory control whether by State or under a statute would not be sufficient to characterise a body i.e. corporation or a company as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Similarly in the case of S.S.Rana Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies [(2006) 11 SCC 634] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "It is well settled that general regulations under an Act, like the Companies Act or the Cooperative Societies Act, would not render the activities of a company or a society as subject to control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the Act are meant to ensure proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to do with its day-to-day functions." The sequitur would thus be that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against such a body i.e. company/ corporate would not be maintainable merely because it is regulated under a Statute. Consequently, I would not only dismiss the stay application but also the writ petition holding it to be not maintainable.;