In decided case, Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, the issue

was whether a non-statutory body/corporation could be considered as State under Art. 12.
The court established that, the question in each case would be whether in the light of the
cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively
dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the
body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article
12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or
otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.( (2002) 5 SCC 111)-------------- Ajay
Hasia vs khalid mujib case ko isne overrule kia hai toh mere hisaab se ajay hasia wala hata
hi dena memo se.

A policy decision taken by the Government is not liable to interference.“It is also well settled that
policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered with or struck down merely on certain factual
disputes in the matter. It is not open to the court to strike down such decision until and unless a
serious and grave error is found on the part of the Central Government or the State Government. Akhil
Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P., (2006) 4 SCC 162

In Premium Granites v.  State of T.N., while considering the court’s powers in interfering

with the policy decision, it was observed that, It is not the domain of the Court to embark
upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular
public policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to
the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be. (1994) 1 SCR
579.

A policy decision taken by the Government is not liable to interference, unless the Court is satisfied
that the rule-making authority has acted arbitrarily or in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 16. K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka AIR 1994 SC 55.

The Supreme Court in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri v. Union of India,
while upholding the decision to sell, observed that: We certainly agree that judicial
interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of
separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial
review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a government
company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super
auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the
administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has
substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public
administration.  (1981) 1 LLJ 193