JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed in the writ proceedings dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the same being not maintainable.

2. The brief and relevant factual matrix of the case is that the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) is a private company engaged in the business of processing and packaging of milk and dairy products. It responded to an Expression of Interest (EOI) published by the respondent no. 1 for packaging of minimum of 15,000 lts. of milk per day and 1,000 kg of sour curd and lassi per day, for its marketing in different stations. The petitioner emerged unsuccessful in the process. The work was awarded to private respondent no.4.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the writ court assailing the award to respondent no. 4 on several grounds including the ground that the respondent no. 4 was lacking the requisite qualification as it did not possess the requisite dimension of land as per EOI. The respondent no. 1 appeared in the writ proceedings and raised an issue of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions against a private co-operative society. The respondent no. 1 is a registered co-operative society under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 comprised of members who are farmers and cattle owners in the District of Murshidabad. It was the specific case of the respondent no. 1, private society, that it was not receiving any aid from the Government nor there was any control in the affairs of the society by the State or its authorities. The society was also not performing any public duties and, therefore, would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invocation of writ jurisdiction seeking directions against it by the petitioner was impermissible. The contention of the respondent no. 1 has been accepted and the writ petition has been dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.

4. Under the above noted circumstances, we invited the learned Counsel for the appellant to address us on maintainability of the writ petition. It is thus submitted that milk supply is a public function for public good, catering to the public need for supply of milk; and for the collective benefit of the members of the petitioner society. Averments have also been made in the writ petition regarding control by the District Magistrate, respondent no. 3 over the affairs of the co-operative society. The issue whether such a society would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction has been answered in the affirmative by various decisions, including decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Ajit T. Kossambe Vs. Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.  2008 SCC Online Bombay 312. It is submitted that since a public function is being discharged by the society, the plea that it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction is unsustainable and the writ court has erred in not entertaining the writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision in the case Bholanath Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. decided on 09.11.1995 reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 502, Apex Court decision in the case of Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.  (2013) 6 SCC 452 decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 30.11.2020 in Writ Appeal No. 100141 of 2020, in the matter of Chandrakant S/o Tammanna Majagi Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council, the Apex Court decision in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (through guardian/father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.  (2021) 7 SCC 535 and a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.  (2023) 4 SCC 1.

6. The preliminary issue, therefore, can be determined based on a consideration whether the respondent no. 1 is discharging any public