JUDGMENT

V. R. KRISHNA IYER, J.: — This Civil Appeal, by special leave under Art. 136, raises a common question of great moment, the decision of which may have a wider litigative fall-out than may appear on the surface. The first question expressed, manu brevi, is as to whether a writ may issue, under Art. 226, against a Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (Act XXV of 1961) setting asidea selection list at the instance of the aggrieved appellants who were not included therein. The High Court (both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench) following an earlier judgment of that Court in (1973) 2 SLR 845 (Punj. & Har.) held the writ petition to be incompetent, directed as it was against a Co-operative Society.

2. Shri M. K. Ramamurthy challenges the holding the High Court on the score that the Punjab StateCo-operative land Mortgage Bank Ltd., (State Bank, for short) is other authority within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, falls within the definition of State. Consequentially, a writ may issue against it. Secondly, he contents that the State Bank is a public authority and, therefore, falls within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. His third plea is much wider in its sweep, for he urges that Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act are subject to the jurisdiction of High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution, since this provision is widely worded and writs may be issued for any purpose against any person.

3. Foremost among his three points is the first one which he expressed with force, backed by decisions of this Court spanning a period ending with the recent decisions in ONGC Case. According tohis submission, the State Bank is more than a mere Co-operative Society, but has statutory powers and duties, exercises sovereign functions and must be assessed in its status with reference to the Punjab Land Mortgage Bank Act, 1957 ( for short, the Mortgage Bank Act). Chronologically, we may mention that there was Co-operative Societies Act, 1954 in the Punjab under which the present, Society was registered, but that Act was repealed by the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Societies Act). The present Society, though registered under the 1954 Act continues as a Society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and is a State Bank, as defined in Sec. 2(h) of the Mortgage Bank Act. A study of the two statutes, the trappings attaching to the Society, the other futures of and powers vested in Society, have all to be studied in their totality before testing the contention of the appellant in the light ruling of the Court.

4. Although great argument has been addressed in the special circumstancs of the case, there is no need to investigate these questions apart from briefly adverting to them May be, in a different case where these issues directly and inescapably arise, this Court may have to pronounce on them, but where, as here, the lis lends itself to disposal on a short point, to launch on a long debate about other arguments of importance may not be appropriate. Of course, if you were to make little fishes talk, they would talk like whales,as Dr. Johnson put it. The whales of legal dispute do not challenge us here since the appellant is seeking relief which, on the face of it cannot be granted for a different little fish reason. A finger-nail sketch of the facts is enough to bring out the crucial issues and the broad point on which we propose to dispose of this appeal.

5. The appellant is a permanent servant of the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank (hereinafter referred as the operative Bank) since 1964 and promoted in 1968 as an Assistant. According to him, the Co-operative Bank is a statutory body established in pursuance of the Land Mortgage Bank Act, 1957, with power to frame subordinate legislation and thereby enjoying sovereign power. Sections 11, 12, 15, 22 and 40 have been