( 1 ). The petitioners, who are members of Respondent No. 2-The Narela Co-operative Marketing Society Limited (hereinafter called the Society) which is registered with Respondent No. 3-Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration, under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, have filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction for quashing the notice dated January 13, 1992, issued by Respondent No. 1, the Secretary of the Society. This notice has called for holding of annual general meeting of the members of the Soceity of January 29,1992, at 11 AM in the premises of the Society at Mandi Narela. The agenda of the proposed meeting includes, inter alia, election programme for electing five members of the Managing Committee including one Vice President in accordance with the bye-laws Nos. 28 and 29 in place of the five members so retiring. The election programme announced the date of filing of the nomination papers as January 18, 1992 from 11 AM to 4 PM, receipt of objections on the following day, scrutiny of the nominations on January 20, 1992, withdrawal of the nominations on January 22,1992 and polling, counting and announcement of result on January 29, 192, These notices had been despatched under certificate of posting to the members on January 14, 1992 and were received by the petitioners and some of the members of the Society even after the expiry of the date of filing of nomination papers.

( 2 ). It has been pleaded that under the statutory provisions and also under the bye-laws of the Society, 14 days clear notice was required for holding the annual general meeting and if reasonable time which is ordinarily spent in the post is excluded i. e. of 48 hours from the date of the despatch of the notices, then the 14 days have to be calculated at the most from January 16, 1992 and the date fixed for holding the annual general meeting as January 29, 1992, does not comply with the requirement of 14 days clear notice.

( 3 ). It appears that the petitioners as well as Respondents 1 and 2 were all along under the impression that Respondent No-2-the Society is governed by the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and that is why the petitioners had impleaded the Registrar of the Delhi Cooperative Societies as one of the respondents. However, during the course of arguments, reference was made to the bye-laws, copy of which has been placed on the record, which show that the present Society has the area of operation not only in Narela, Nangloi Police Stations of Delhi but also Rai Police Station of Tehsil Sonepat (Haryana) and thus, by virtue of Section 2 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the Respondent No. 2 Society automatically stands governed by the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.

( 4 ). Rule 2 (e) of the Schedule to the said Act requires 14 days clear notice for holding the annual general meeting of the society for purpose of conducting the election. So it is not in dispute before me that the said statutory provisions stand violated in the present case because 14 days clear notice has not been given for holding the annual general meeting for the purpose of election.

( 5 ). However, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has vehemently argued that the writ petition is not at all maintainable against respondents 1 and 2 inasmuch as respondents 1 and 2 are not covered by the definition of the State as enumerated in Article 12 of the Constitution of India or an authority as contemplated by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also urged that respondents 1 and 2 have not been statutorily given any public functions or duties for the enforcement of which the public law remedy of writ could be invoked by the petitioner.

( 6 ). It is, indeed, not in dispute before me that Respondent No. 2 -the Society does not fulfil the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasia