JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The preliminary question required to be determined in these appeals is whether a writ petition is maintainable against Jogindra Central Co. operative Bank Ltd. The learned Single Judge considered this objection and concluded as follows:

"1. the respondent-Bank, i.e. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. is an "instrumentality"/agency" of the State Government, thus it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court;

2. that the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. is an "authority" as well as "person" within the meaning of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court;

3. the writ would lie against the functionaries of the State who passes the order under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder.

4. the State Government is having majority share capital in the respondent-Bank;

5. the State of Himachal Pradesh exercises deep and pervasive control over the Bank financially, functionally and administratively since out of 13 Directors, 4 are nominated through the State Government and one Managing Director who is also appointed by the State Government is also one of the Directors of the respondent-Bank;

6. the State Government exercises control over the functioning of the respondent-Bank in view of the provisions cited here-in-above commencing from the registration up to the winding up of the Co-operative Societies;..........."

2. Before we proceed, it may be noticed that after the aforesaid impugned judgment had been rendered by the learned Single Judge, a learned Division of this court, while hearing CWP No. 3634 of 2012 vide order dated 20.7.2012 referred the following question of law for consideration by Full Bench:

(i) "Whether the Kangra Central Co. operative Bank, the Himachal Pradesh State Co. operative Bank Ltd. and the Central Co. operative Bank are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and;

(ii) whether a writ would lie against them?".

3. While answering the first part of the question insofar the respondent Bank is concerned, it was held

"10. That takes us to Central Cooperative Bank, whether it is a State within the meaning of Article 12. As regards this Bank, the decision pressed into service is of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mehar Chand and another vs. Central Cooperative Bank and others 12. No decision of the Division Bench of this court has been brought to our notice, which has taken in CWP No. 641 of 2002 decided on 26th September, 2007 the view that the said Bank was State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus understood, it is again not a case of conflicting opinion of two coordinate Benches of the same High Court on the point. If the matter of Bank were to proceed before the learned Single Judge of this Court perhaps the Single Judge Bench would be bound by the said decision, unless it was persuaded to take a different view in which case the only option available to that Judge would be to refer the matter to Larger Bench. In that case, the matter could proceed before the Division Bench of two Judges of our High Court and may not require consideration by a Full Bench. On the other hand, if the issue was to be raised before the Division Bench, in the first instance, and that Bench was not inclined to follow the view taken by the learned Single Judge Bench of this Court, it would be free to take a different view and hold that the Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since the writ petition pertaining to Bank is still pending, ordinarily, therefore, the issue ought to be dealt with by the Division Bench in the first instance and not by the Full Bench of the High Court. In other words, the pending writ petition pertaining to Bank must proceed before the concerned Bench, who would be free to take appropriate decision in