ORDER :

JEEVAN REDDY, J.:— In V Narsing Rao v. 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’ withia 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. v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (2) AIR 1970 SC 245 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 v. 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 to it by the learned Judge. It did not bold that even where a co-operative society can be characterized as ‘State’ within the meaning of Art. 12, no writ lies against it or that the bye-laws cannot be enforced. In the case before the Bench, it held firstly that the society concerned therein cannot be characterized as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art 12, or an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Art. 226, and held further that since no statutory obligation of a public nature is sought to be enforced through that writ petition the society cannot also be treated as a ‘person’ within the meaning of Art. 226. It is only thereafter that it was held that the bye-laws do not have the statutory force and cannot be enforced. Indeed, Jagannadha Rao, J has in WP No 7595/1989 disposed of on 17-11-89 understood the said Bench decision correctly, ie in the sense explained by us. Be that as it may in the interest of clarity and for having an authoritative pronouncement on the subject it is appropriate that the matter is referred to a Full Bench. The questions referred to the Full Bench are the following:—

“(1) Where a co-operative society can be characterized as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art, 12, to what extent can the bye-laws of the Society be enforced through a writ petition?

(2) Where the society cannot be characterized as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art. 12, can the bye-laws of such society be enforced through a writ petition?

(3) If a society cannot be characterized as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art. 12, can a writ petition be maintained against it where the petitioner is not seeking to enforce a statutory provision. In other words, in such a case, can a person seek to enforce the bye-laws of such cooperative society through a writ petition?”

2. The papers may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders regarding constitution of a Full Bench. Since the questions arising herein are arising every day for decision before this Court it is but appropriate that the Full Bench is constituted at an early date.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of reference dated 19-1-90 referring the appeal to a Full Bench, this appeal along with WP Nos. 13286/88 and WP 1780/89 Coming on for hearing before the Full Bench.

The Court delivered the following:—

JUDGMENT :

JEEVAN REDDY, J.:— The issue before the Full Bench is whether a writ petition lies against a Cooperative Society and if it does, in what circumstances? Context is the enforcement of bye-laws governing service conditions of employees.

2. In PS Naidu v. Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank (1) 1977 (2) APLJ 282 a Division Bench of this Court held that an order of punishment made by a Society against its employee cannot be questioned by the latter by way of a writ petition. The Bench pointed out “a