SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed as a public interest petition seeking appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india including a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking restoration of the publication and copyright of "the wealth of India"/bharat Ki Sampada" to the national Institute of Science Communication and for release of the copy of enquiry report of Mr. D. K. Sangal for the public and consequent disciplinary action against the respondents. The petitioners have raised the issue of restoration of publication and copyright of encyclopedia on mineral and biological resources of the country called the Wealth of India/bharat Ki sampada, the publication of which is alleged to have been stopped on account of illegal and malafide transfer of information, database and copyright from the Government organisation called NISCOM to a new private society created by respondent no. 3. The petition has been listed on various occasions and affidavits have/been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and. 3 though no show cause notice has been issued. The said respondents have challenged the bonafides of the petition and have claimed that petitioner no. 1 had filed a similar writ petition No. 726/98 earlier raising the similar grounds which had been dismissed on 18/2/1998 as not a fit case to be entertained as a public interest petition. The affidavit has sought to rebut the allegations of the petitioners and has relied upon the observations of this court in the case in CUP No. 1698/98 Centre for public Interest Litigation. Delhi vs. Union of India and Ors. where an order was passed on 5/5/1998 to the effect that where a competent authority is seized of the matter, it is not appropriate to keep the writ petition pending. It is claimed that action is being taken in pursuance to the report of Sangal Committee. ( 2 ) IT was further stated that two publications mentioned continued to be published. A preliminary objection has also been taken that the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable in view of the Judgment of Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary vs. Union of India and Ors AIR 1975 sc 1329 where CSIR was held not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. ( 3 ) IN view of this preliminary objection being raised about the maintainability of the petition, we deemed it expedient to hear the learned counsel for the parties on this preliminary issue of maintainability before proceeding any further in the matter. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor general, instructed by Ms. Indu Malhotra, Advocate has objected to the maintainability of the petition and has relied upon the judgment in Sabhajit Tewary"s case (supra ). The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Supreme Court had considered the composition of the Council of Scientific and industrial Research (for short CSIR) and, thereafter, held that it is not an authority within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India. It would be relevant to reproduce paras 2, 3 and 4 of the said judgment. "2. In order to entitle the petitioner to impeach the circular on the ground of infraction of Articles 14 and 16, the petitioner has to establish that the Council of Scientific and Industrial research is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 3. The Council is a society registered under the Societies registration Act. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on these features of the society. Under Rule 3, the Prime Minister of India is the ex-officio President of the Society. The governing Body under Rule 30 consists of inter alia some persons appointed by the government of India representing the administrative Ministry under which the council of Scientific and Industrial research is included and the Ministry of finance and one or more members appointed by the Government of India. The government of India may terminate the membership of any member or at one and the same time of all members other than the ex-officio members of the Governing Body. Rule 45 states that the Governing Body shall have the management of all the affairs and funds of the Society. Rule 46 states that the Governing Body shall have power, with the sanction of the Government of India to frame, amend or repeal bye-laws not inconsistent with the rules for the administration and management of the affairs of the Society and in particular to provide for the terms and tenure of appointments, emoluments, allowances, rules of discipline and other conditions of service of the officers and staff of the Society. Reference was also made to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and in particular to page 76 where it is stated that all matters relating to the council of Scientific and Industrial research are under the department of science and Technology. 4. Extracting the features as aforesaid, it was contended that these would indicate that the Council of scientific and Industrial Research was really an agency of the Government. This contention is unsound. The Society does not have a statutory character like the oil and Natural Gas Commission, or the life Insurance Corporation or Industrial finance Corporation. It is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration act. The fact that the Prime Minister is the President or that the Government appoints nominees to the Governing Body or that the Government may terminate the membership will not establish anything more than the fact that the Government takes special care that the promotion, guidance and co-operation of scientific and industrial research, the institution and financing of specific researches, establishment or development and assistance to special institutions or departments or the existing institutions for scientific study or problem affecting particular industry in a trade, the utilisation of the result of the researches conducted under the auspices of the Council towards the development of industries in the country are carried out in a responsible manner. ( 10 ) WE have duly considered submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Prashant Bhushan and on behalf of respondent by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor General. We may observe at the inception itself that our decision on the maintainability of the petition has to be within the four corners of the Constitution bench judgment in Sabhajit Teway s case (supra ). The supreme Court in the said Judgment has not only categorically held CSIR not an authority within the meaning of Article 2 of the Constitution of India but has come to this conclusion after analysing the features of the society in para 3 of the judgment. Further in para 22 of the judgment Supreme Court has observed that to impeach the circular (which would in our opinion apply to any action of the said society) it had to be established that CSIR is an, authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further in para 22 of the judgment Supreme Court has observed that to impeach the circular (which would in our opinion apply to any action of the said society) it had to be established that CSIR is an, authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) THE fact that reference has been made to a larger bench on this issue by the Supreme Court cannot affect adjudication of the present petition at this stage since we are bound by the judgment of the supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary s case (supra ). It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in Andi Mukta s case (supra) had drawn the distinction between the power to be exercised under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India and had held that Article 12 is relevant only for purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights of people and not putting them in water tight compartment. The Supreme Court had observed that the words "any person or authority" would extend to other persons or bodies "performing public duty". ( 12 ) WE are of the considered view that in view of the Supreme Court having examined the nature of the constitution of CSIR in Sabhajit Tewary s case (supra) it is not really open for us to traverse grounds beyond the parameters laid down in the said judgment. We thus dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Parties are left to bear their own costs.