( 1 ) IN V Narsing Rao Vs Prudential co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Hyderabad (1) 1989 (1) ALT 300 it was held by a bench that where a particular Co operative society cannot be characterized as state within the meaning of Art. 12, or as an authority within the meaning of Article 226, a writ would not lie against such cooperative society to enforce the bye-laws. It was held following the decision of the supreme Court in Co-operative Central bank Ltd. Vs Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (2) AIR 1970 SC 215 that bye laws do not have the force of law. It was also held that such co-operative society is not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless what is sought to be enforced is a statutory obligation of a public nature. This decision has however been criticized by a learned single Judge in APDD Cooperative Federation Ltd, Vs. Milk Producers Co operative union Ltd, (3) 1989 (2) APLJ 455. The learned single Judge has held that in view of of certain decisions of the Supreme Court, the bye-laws of a co-operative society are enforceable if that society can be characterized as a state within the meaning of art. 12. The Bench decision did not, in fact, hold what is attributed