JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus to Respondent No.1/Central Registrar, Multi State Co-operative Societies to issue directions to Respondents No.2 and 3 to withdraw the illegal acceptance of VRS application dated 01.08.2016 and reinstate the Petitioner on his post as Branch Manager-C with immediate effect. It is undisputed that Petitioner has retired on superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition in the year 2022.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 is a Thrift and Credit Society registered and governed under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `2002 Act') and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the Bye-laws of the Society. The objects and functions of the Society is to promote interests of all its members to attain their social and economic betterment through self help and mutual aid in accordance with the co-operative principles. Its members contribute towards monthly compulsory deposit and Respondent No.2 is neither a statutory Corporation nor a public authority and the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is thus not maintainable. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar v. Central Registrar of Coop Socy and Ors., W.P.(C) No.2059/2021 dated 19.07.2022. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Sri V Karunagaran v. The Secretary Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Ltd. & Anr., W.P. No. 4011 of 2006 and of this Court in Northern Zone Railway Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. v. Central Registrar Co-operative Society and Others, AIR 2012 Delhi 112, wherein Courts have held that Respondent No.2 is neither a statutory Corporation nor a public authority and thus not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner, per contra, submits that the writ petition is maintainable and it is not open to the Respondents to raise objection on the maintainability, as this issue already stands settled by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2019, whereby the Court held that the writ petition is maintainable and also observed that the action of the Respondents is in violation of Section 52 of the 2002 Act.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their contentions.

5. Having perused the judgment in Sushil Kumar (supra), this Court finds merit in the contention of the Respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, two writ petitions were decided by a common judgment where the challenge was to the steps initiated by Northern Zone Railway Employees Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., which is Respondent No.2 herein, for the purpose of election of delegates. Preliminary objections were raised by the Respondents to the maintainability of the petitions. The Court while analysing various judgments on the subject as well as the aims and objectives of Respondent No.2 dismissed the writ petitions, as not maintainable and relevant paras are as follows:

"20. The judgment of a learned Judge of the Court in NZRECTC vs. Central Registrar, Cooperative Society & Ors., AIR 2012 Del 112, however, would be of some significance and would merit a more detailed consideration. It becomes pertinent to note that NZRECTC was principally dealing with the question of whether the respondent cooperative society would be amenable to the pro