A body must fulfill specific criteria to be considered as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and the Court's jurisdiction in a writ petition depends on the determination of the nature of the entity in question.

JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

The petitioner is a private Company engaged in the business of processing and packaging of milk and other dairy products under the brand name of Hillman. The respondent no. 1 is a Cooperative Society who invited Expression of Interest for empanelment of dairy plants for packaging and marketing. The petitioner submitted its proposal in response to the said invitation but its proposal was not accepted.

2. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondent no. 1 in rejecting the proposal filed by the petitioner and in turn accepting the proposal of the private respondent.

3. The respondent no. 1 raises an issue of maintainability of the writ petition against the respondent no. 1. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 1 is a private Cooperative Society which cannot be termed and treated as ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The government does not have any control or supervision in the activities of the Cooperative Society and, accordingly, the Society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The State government is not at all involved in the decision making process of the Cooperative Society and the Cooperative Society is not the part of any department of the government.

4. It has been submitted that the State came out with a project to enable the farmers to form Cooperative Society at the village level to sell their products. The fund for running the Cooperative Society has been raised by its members who are the shareholders of the Society. The District Magistrate and the Collector of the District is appointed as Special Officer only for the purpose of holding elections of the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 1. The State merely extends help by guiding in implementation of various projects and finance to help the Society to tide over its financial difficulties.

5. In support of the submission that the writ petition will not be maintainable against the respondent no.1, learned advocate representing the respondent no.1 relies upon the decision delivered by this Court in the matter of Bholanath Roy vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1996) 100 CAL WN 657.

6. Respondent no.1 prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Learned advocate representing the petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Hasia & Ors. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 in support of the submission that the Cooperative Society will be amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

8. The petitioner also relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors. Vs. Anoj Kumar Agarwala & Ors. reported in (2020) 17 SCC 577 to support the maintainability of the writ petition.

9. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 670 wherein the Court opined that for a body to fulfil the criteria of State under Article 12 the said body should discharge public duties. Merely because the State encourages in the functioning of the body, the same by itself would not make it a public duty. The said activities are undertaken voluntarily and there is no obligation on the part of the State to discharge activities of public character.

10. The petitioner also relies upon the judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the matter of Ajit T.Kossambe (Dr.) vs. Goa State Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited reported in 2008 SCC Online BOM 312. The challenge in the said case was the order of termination of the petitioner with decision to abolish the post in which the petitioner was serving. Objection was raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the writ. It was contended by the respondent