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 attribute