JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Challenge in this present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8279/2018. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has been pleased to follow the Special Bench Judgment of this court in the case of the Organizer, Dehri C.D. & C.M. Union Limited Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 695 and held that the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable against a cooperative society.

2. Although the Letters Patent Appeal was taken up for hearing earlier but it has been heard afresh today.

3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench of this court in the case of Organizer, Dehri C.D. & C.M. Union Limited (supra) has no application in the facts of the present case, moreover in the said case Hon’ble Special Bench was considering altogether a different issue. Learned senior counsel has taken this court through the provision of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the NABARD Act, 1981 to submit that the respondent Bank is discharging the sovereign functions which is of public importance and therefore it would be amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 741 to submit that in the said case the appellant UP State Cooperative Land Development Bank though was a cooperative society registered under the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 was constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Land Development Bank Act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank Act’), in exercise of power conferred conferred on the State Government by Section 30 of the Bank Act, Rules were framed namely the UP Cooperative Land Development Bank Rules 1971. Service condition of the employees of the appellant was also framed under regulation framed by the UP Cooperative Institutional Service Code constituted under Section 122 of the Societies Act.

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court having noticed that the appellant was functioning as a cooperative society under the Societies Act but it had been constituted under the provisions of the Bank Act and the State Government had by virtue of the power conferred upon it framed Rules of 1971 and various other factors came to a conclusion that the appellant is an authority controlled by the State Government and the service condition of the employees of the appellant particularly with regard to disciplinary proceedings against them were statutory in nature and thus writ petition was maintainable against the appellant.

5. While dealing with the language of Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The language of Article 226 does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder though by various decisions of this court with varying and divergent views, it has been held that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only when a body or authority, the decision of which is complained, was exercising it’s power in discharge of public duty and that writ is a public law remedy....”

6. In this connection, learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251 in which after referring to the catena of decisions the Hon’ble Apex Court held “To sum up: public policy is not a static concept. It varies with times and from generation to generation. But what is in public good and in public interest cannot be opposed to public policy and vice versa. Fundamental policy of law would also constitute a facet