Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1757
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5251 of 2022, SLP (Civil) No. 1246 of 2015, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4518 of 2016
Decided On : 12-08-2022
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ petition against a cooperative bank under the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Act and Article 12 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Maintainability - Writ Petition - Cooperative Bank - Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Act - Article 12 of the Constitution
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenges the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 316 of 2012, which dealt with the claim preferred by the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association challenging the stopping of pension grant. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, but the Division Bench set aside the view taken by the Single Judge, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench was in error in setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge, and the petition as filed was held to be perfectly maintainable. The matter was restored to the file of the Division Bench for disposal on merits.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition against the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. under the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Act and Article 12 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petition as filed was perfectly maintainable based on the facts found by the Single Judge, and the Division Bench was in error in setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the view taken by the Division Bench was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the Division Bench for disposal on merits.
ORDER :
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5251 OF 2022, SLP (CIVIL) NO. 1246 OF 2015
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 316 of 2012.
3. While dealing with the claim preferred by the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (“the Association” for short) challenging the Orders dated 21.04.2010 and 24.04.2010 stopping grant of pension to the Members of the Association, the Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated 15.05.2012 in CWP No. 1679 of 2010 directed as under:
“26. In the instant case, the withdrawing of the scheme by the BOD when it was approved by the General House, which is a final authority, is contrary to the provisions of the Policy and the second respondent has acted beyond his powers delegated under the Act.
27. The change of the policy and withdrawal has to be made in the same process in which it has been made, which lacks in the present case.
28. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders Annexure R-3/7 and R-3/8 discontinuing of policy are hereby quashed and set-aside. Thus, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 2 to place the Scheme before the General House for reconsideration and take a final decision in the matter whether to continue the Scheme with some modifications, if required or to completely disband it or suggest alternative proposal. Such a decision be taken after affording hearing to the petitioners and also the respondent-bank within four months from the production of the copy of this judgment.”
4. During the course of his judgment, the Single Judge dealt with all the relevant submissions including one concerning maintainability of the writ petition and observed as under:
“19. The learned counsel for the respondents admitted that the State had more than 50 per cent share in the capital of the bank. The Registrar of the Cooperative Societies is a member of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services. The perusal of the Cooperative Societies Act reveals that the respondent-Society cannot budge even an inch without his approval, therefore, there is deep and pervasive control of the State Government not only on its employees by the second respondent as ventilated by the learned counsel for the respondents but also on the working of respondents-Bank, as is evident from the facts in hand that the respondent-bank has more than 50% share of the Government, it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or is under the control of the State Government, as also the Government nominates members of the Managing Committee (BOD) under Section 35 of Cooperative Societies Act, also 1/3 of the members are appointed by the Registrar under Rule 39 framed under the Act. Even under Rule 49, he is empowered to inter-alia issue general or special orders to the Managing Committee to raise and invest funds. Therefore, the State has a deep and pervasive control on its working. Hence, the respondent-bank is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, in my opinion, the writ is maintainable against the respondent-bank.”
5. It appears that in a different context, the issue concerning maintainability of a Writ Petition against Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (‘the Bank’ for short) again came up before the Full bench of the High Court, which by its judgment dated 14.05.2013 observed as under:
“15. For the view taken by us on both facets of the referred questions, we proceed to answer the Reference as under:
(1) The question as to whether Kangra Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is no more res integra. It has been authoritatively answered by the Apex Court in S.S. Rana’s case (supra.)
(2) Even in the case of H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., the question has been answered by the Division Bench of our High Court in Chandra Kumar Malhotra’s case (supra). There is no conflicting decis
