ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

2. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RESPONDENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS NOT "STATE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

3. THOUGH AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO SHOW THAT IT IS "STATE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NOT EVEN ANY SPECIFIC AVERMENT IN THIS REGARD IN THE WRIT PETITION. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IS "STATE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND HAS TO BE HIGHLIGHTED AND THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FIXED BY THIS COURT IN VARIOUS CASES HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED. THAT NOT HAVING BEEN DONE, THE HIGH COURTS FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS NOT "STATE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.