( 1 ) ON an earlier occasion, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 17-2-1999 had partly allowed the Writ petition and remanded the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, to the disciplinary authority with a direction to dispose of the proceedings afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner on the ground that the enquiry against the petitioner- delinquent was conducted without notice to the petitioner. In Civil Appeal no. 3186/2000 preferred against the said judgment of the Division Bench by the respondent-Union, the Supreme Court found that the allegation that the enquiry was conducted without notice to the petitioner is factually incorrect. The supreme Court also found that though the 1st respondent has taken a plea that the writ Petition is not maintainable against it, this Court did not deal with that question. In that view of the matter, the order of the division Bench was set aside by the supreme Court and proceedings are remanded to this Court to dispose of the same after dealing with all the contentions raised by both the delinquent as well as the employer. That is how this Writ Petition is placed before this Bench as directed by the hon ble the Chief Justice.

( 2 ) WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the disciplinary proceedings. As regards the maintainability question raised by the 1st respondent herein, suffice it to state that there are already number of decisions wherein this Court has opined that the district Milk Producers Co-operative union is not a state within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, no writ could lie against it. At the time of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent placed before us three unreported judgments of the division Bench of this Court. They are judgments in W. A. No. 96 of 1998 dated 30-3-1998; W. A. No. 28 of 1990 dated 8-11-1994; and W. A. No. 1498 of 1995 and w. P. No. 3906 of 1992 dated 8-12-1995. In the first case, the Division Bench has held that the Writ is not maintainable against the 2nd respondent therein i. e. , Milk Producers co-operative Union (wrongly mentioned as factory in the cause title of the Writ appeal ). In the second case, the Division bench has opined that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the Guntur District milk Producers Co-operative Union limited, the very 1st respondent herein. Similarly, in W. A. No. 1498 of 1995 the division Bench has opined that the prakasham District Co-operative Milk producers Union, Ongole is not a state and, therefore, no Writ could lie against it.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, however, would place strong reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Andhra Pradesh Dairy development Co-operative Federation Ltd. Workers Union represented by its General secretary, Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi, Guntur district v. The General Manager, The Guntur district Milk Producers Co-operative Union ltd. , Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi, Guntur district in support of the contention that the 1st respondent-Union is a state within the meaning of Article 12 and an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the constitution and, therefore, writ petition is maintainable. It is true that in the above judgment the learned Single Judge of this court (M. N. Rao, J.) has opined that a Writ is maintainable against the Guntur District milk Producers Co-operative Union limited. However, it is relevant to note that the correctness of the ratio of this very judgment fell for consideration before the full Bench of this Court in Sri Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Amalapuram and another v. N. Seetharama Raju. The above judgment of Sri M. N. Rao, J. was referred to, considered and overruled by the Full bench. There cannot be any doubt in this regard because a Division Bench consisting of M. N. Rao, J himself and sri T. N. C. Ranga