1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned counsel for the BISCOMAUN.

2. In all these matters the writ petitioners claim certain reliefs against the BISCOMAUN.

3. Learned counsel for the BISCOMAUN raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that admittedly the BISCOMAUN is not under supersession and is being run by a Managing Committee and therefore it being a co-operative society not under supersession, it cannot be considered as State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sah, etc. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.: 2000(4) PLJR 273.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that this Court has been issuing direction in its writ jurisdiction in numerous cases to BISCOMAUN and thus for the said technical reason, the writ petitions should not be thrown out. In support of the same he relies upon various decisions annexed by him as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh V/s. The Administrator, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited and Another: 2006(3) PLJR (SC)70. It is submitt