A cooperative society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, no writ can lie against a cooperative society.

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a learned Single Judge of this Court by the order under appeal has allowed a writ application filed on behalf of the respondents herein. Learned Single Judge has directed the Managing Director, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Patna to take a fresh decision with respect of regularization/absorption of services of the petitioners in accordance with the settled principles of law and in view of the discussions made in the said judgment and order.

2. This is not in dispute that the said Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) is a Cooperative society. The question as to whether the said Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction was not raised on behalf of either of the parties before the learned Single Judge.

3. In view of the recent Five Judge Special Bench decision of this Court reported in 2014(1) PLJR 695(The Organizer, Dehri C.D.& C.M. Union Limited vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) their remains no scope of doubt that the Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Special Bench while laying down the law in respect of Cooperative societies has affirmed the view of Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1988 PLJR 1065 (Nand Kishore Rai and others Vs. the State of Bihar and others).

4. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.6.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2491 of 2006 is being assailed in the present intra Court appeal on various grounds.

5.We have heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Kumar Alok learned counsel representing the private respondents.

6. Mr. Y.V. Giri learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has at the very out set submitted that though the question of maintainability of the writ application was not specifically raised before the learned Single Judge, he contends that a question of law which goes to the root of the matter can be raised at any stage. He has placed reliance on the Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Organizer, Dehri C.D.& C.M. Union Limited (supra) to submit that the writ application could not have been entertained.

7. Mr. Kumar Alok learned counsel appearing for the private respondents on the other hand contends that in view of the pervasive control which the State Government of Bihar exercises over the Bank in question, it cannot be said that the Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article, 12 of the Constitution of India. He has referred to the facts which have been noted in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge to submit that the fact that the writ petitioners/respondents were discriminated against, is manifest.

8. However, after having examined the Special Bench decision of this Court in case of the Organizer, Dehri C.D.& C.M. Union Limited (supra), in our view Mr. Y.V. Giri learned Senior counsel is correct in his submission that the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank cannot be said to be State within the meaning of Article, 12 of the Constitution of India. As per the majority view of the Special Bench decision, no writ can lie against a cooperative society in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel is also correct in his submission that the question as to whether the Bank is State or not goes to the root of the matter and this aspect involves pure question of law which can be raised at any appropriate state.

10. In that view of the matter, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the writ application itself was not maintainable. The law that a cooperative society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 has held the field right from the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nand Kisho