( 1 ) THE respondent-Bank resists this writ petition on the basic ground that it is not maintainable. It is claimed that the respondent-Bank cannot be regarded as state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, Sri G. Ramachandra rao, relies on a decision of a Division bench of this Court in P S Naidu vs Chittoor district Co-operative Central Bank (1) 1977 (2) APLJ 282. The dicision of the Division Bench undoubtedly supports the learned counsel.

( 2 ) I have some reservations about the correctness of the view taken by the division Bench. The respondent-Bank is governed by all the regulations of the reserve Bank of India and is amenable to its control and supervision. It discharges public functions. The control and supervision exercised by the Reserve Bank would, in my view, bring the respondent bank within the ambit of "state" in article 12 of the Constitution. As I am bound by the Division Bench, I cannot possibly take a view contrary to the one taken by the Division Bench. I think it expedient that the matter is placed before a Division Bench for appropriate consideration. I may also state that the Earned counsel for the respondent-Bank relies on the decision of a learned single Judge in ranga Reddy vs Co-op. Electricity Supply society Ltd. (2) 1977 ALT 172. This decision also supports the view canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent- bank.

( 3 ) PLACE the papers before my lord, the Chief Justice, for referring the matter to a Division Bench. Mr. M. Surya Rao, Advocate (W. C) for the Petitioner. Mr. G. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. In pursuance of the order of the high Court dated 19-4-1988 referring w P to a Division Bench this petition coming on for hearing on this the 20th day of January, 1989 before the Hon ble Mr Justice Jeevan reddy and the Hon ble Mr. Justice Syed shah Mohd. Quadri upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed therein and the material papers connected thereto and the Order of this Court dt; 19-4-1988 and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the court delivered the following:-

( 4 ) A learned single Judge has referred this writ petition to Bench for considering the question of maintainability of writ petition against a Cooperative society.

( 5 ) BY its proceedings dated 31-3-83 the respondent, Prudential Co-operative urban Bank Ltd. , Secunderabad, dismissed the petitioner from its service in pursuance of a disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the said proceedings in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, the respondent- bank raised an objection, on the basis of a Bench decision of this Court in p S Naidu vs Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank (1) 1977- (2), APLJ 282 and another decision in Ranga Reddy vs. Co operative Electricity Supply Society (2) 1977, ALT 172 with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition. It was contended by the respondent that it cannot be regarded as state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, and hence it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The learned single Judge felt a doubt about the correctness of the said bench decision; but since he felt bound by it, he referred the matter to Bench. In view of the general importance of the question, we gave notice to the learned advocate-General to assist the Court, which he has gladly done. We record our grateful appreciation of the assistance rendered by him

( 6 ) ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution empowers this Court "to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate case? any Government. . . . . . . . . . . . directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of Habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document