A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution does not lie against a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, as it is considered a private body and not a public body discharging public duties.

K. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari call for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No. CESS G. M. D. No. 1529 of 1975-76 dated 10 and 11th September. 1975 of the General Manager, Co-operative electricity Society Limited, Sircila, removing him from service. Various contentions have been raised in the writ petition challenging the impugned order. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri P. A. Chowdary, the learned Counsel for the respondent contending that the respondent is a private society and therefore writ under Article 226 of the constitution does not lie. Sri H. S. Gururaja Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is a co-operative society a statutory and public body and therefore a writ lies but this questition is no longer res integra so far as this is concerned.

( 2 ) IN Mirmuzam Ali Khan vs. The Managine Director. The Andhra Pradesh co-op. Central Land Mortigage Bank Barkatpura Hyderabad 21 (I) Obul reddi, J (as he then was) held that he had held in a number of petitions that Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be called in aid by those serving in statutory Corporations or companies register under the Indian Companies Act, or societies registered under the Ce operative societies Act, and that the petitioner therein, who was an employee of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, a Society registed under the Co-operative Societies Act, cannot maentain the writ petition against the tocieto under Article 226 of the Constitution. In N. Anianeyuiu Raju vs. The Land Mortgage Bank. Narsapur West Godavari, reprsented by its president and two others (2) the petitioner, an employee of Land Mortgage bank, Narsapur which was a Primary Bank, sought to challenge the order, reverting him from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Supervisor. Kondaiah J. following the decisions in Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagatram (3) and Sabhajait Tehari vs. Union of India (4) held that no writ could be issued against a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. On appeal in W. A. No. 474 of 1975 this decision was confirmed by Sambasiva rao and Madhsudana Rao, JJ by their Judgment dated 18th October, 1976. Their Lordships observed at page 8 of the Judgment as follows :"it must, however, be noticed that the petitioner is not an employee of the second respondent. He is an employee in the first respondent bank which is without doubt a private body". Again at page 10 the learned Judges observed at follows :"even if it is construed as an order in violation of bye- law 8, it cannot be said that the second respondent violated any statutory Rule or Rules having the force or even the flavour of law. The bye-law is that the first respondent Land Mortgage bank, Narsapur has been formed under the Andhra Pradesh co-operative Societies Act. In Co-operative Bank vs Industrial Tribunal hyderabad the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that the bye-laws of a co-operative society cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. Non-observation of bye-law 8 by the first respondent bank cannot be considered to be violation of any statutory obligation. In this view of the matter the order of our learned brother dismissing the appellant s petition does not call for any interference". This decision therefore clearly supports the contention of Sri P. A. Chowdary that the second respondent is a society registered under the co-operative Societies Act which is a private body and therefore no writ lies against the respondent under Article 228 of the Constitution. Sri H. S. Gururaja Rao, relid upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sambasiva Rao and Madhusudan Rao JJ. , in osmania College Kurnool. Represented by its Correspondent vs D. V. Subba sastry and others But in that case the leared Judges held that the osmania College is a public bcdy which disch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document