NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

A Division Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court, presided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, by order dated 06.08.2013, passed in this letters patent appeal, has referred the matter to this Special Bench consisting of five Hon’ble Judges, doubting the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Nand Kishore Rai vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., since reported in 1988 P.L.J.R. 1065 and the Full Bench judgment of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sah vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., since reported in 2000 (4) P.L.J.R. 273, in respect of the issue whether a private Co-operative Society, duly registered under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as `the Co-operative Act’ for brevity) not being a “State” by itself, within the meaning ascribed to it under Article 12 of the Constitution, would become a “State” if the elected Managing Committee thereof is taken over and replaced by an Administrator appointed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar as a short term arrangement and whether under those circumstances, writ petition is maintainable questioning the orders passed by the said Administrator.

2. The two judgments referred to above, namely, Nand Kishore Rai (supra) and Rajendra Prasad Sah (supra), while dealing with the case of Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union (BISCOMAUN), registered under the Co-operative Act, during the period of supersession, held that the writ petition challenging orders of the Administrator was maintainable.

3. In my view, in order to answer the reference, it would first be essential to decide the concept of “State” as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution. The second legal issue, that is to be decided, would be the relative scope of “writ jurisdiction and/or the power to issue writs” as contemplated under Article 32 of the Constitution and Article 226 of the Constitution. As corollary to the second issue, it would be necessary to decide the distinction between the respective scope of Article 32 of the Constitution and Article 226 of the Constitution considering the scope of the concept of `State” as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution.

4. Before proceeding further, I deem it necessary to notice salient facts of the case leading to the reference. The facts are not in dispute.

5. On 21.11.2003, the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 12878 of 2003 was filed by Nawal Kishore Singh and Sushil Kumar Sinha, who were employed as Assistant and Cashier-cum-Assistant Accountant, respectively, in the Dehri Cane Development and Cane Marketing Union Limited, a Co-operative Society, registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Act. They challenged the order dated 01.10.2003 passed by the Administrator (respondent no.6), appointed under section 41(5) of the Co-operative Act, by which they were dismissed from service. This order of dismissal was preceded by a notice dated 13.01.2003 as to why departmental proceeding be not initiated against them. They replied. Thereafter, neither charges were framed nor evidence were supplied and without holding a formal departmental proceeding, the Administrator passed the impugned order dismissing them from service. Under these circumstances and upon these findings of fact, the order of dismissal dated 01.10.2003 was quashed and the writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 04.02.2010 by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order aforesaid, the Organizer of Dehri C.D. & C.M. Union Limited (respondent no.7 in the writ petition) preferred an intra court appeal being L.P.A. No. 746 of 2010 on 21.04.2010.

6. A Division Bench, presided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, by order dated 22.04.2010, permitted the said appeal to be withdrawn upon learned counsel for the appellant seeking leave of the Court to file a review application for review of the judgment and orde