Writ petitions against Co-operative Societies are not maintainable as a matter of course, but there may be exceptional circumstances in which a writ petition may be maintainable, such as when the order passed by the Co-operative Society is without jurisdiction, or when the principles of natural justice have been violated.

N.K. JAIN, CJ.

These W.P. Rs. have been posted before us to get an authoritative decision as to whether writ petitions, challenging the orders passed under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act are maintainable.

We will now advert to the facts in detail, as to how the matter, now being referred to us, had been set at naught by two Full Bench decisions of this Court.

In the year 1989, a Full Bench of this Court, in R. Thamilarasan Etc., P. Kannan Etc., v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras and others, 1989-I-LLJ-588 (Mad-FB), while deciding the issue as to whether a writ will lie against Co-operative Society, rendered a finding in negative, holding that no writ is maintainable against Co-operative Society, because it is not a statutory body or an authority or agency or instrumentality of the State, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Natarajan, A. v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1991-II-LLJ-296 (Mad-DB), took a view that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Thamilarasan's Case (supra), which did not analyse the issue in the right perspective, is per incuriam and ultimately held that the writ petitions challenging the orders passed under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act are maintainable. The Division Bench also held that the judgment of the Full Bench (supra) is per incuriam also for the reason that relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies (Appointment of Special Officer) Act, 1976 were not noticed by it. It had further observed that the decision of the Full Bench (supra) is per incuriam for the further reason that the statement of law, as found in the case of Brij Bihari Singh, 1989 (37) 2-B. L.J.R. 219, has not been taken note of, and the Tamilarasan case (supra), decision is only an obiter dicta, as the only question canvassed before the Full Bench was whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not whether a writ would lie against an order passed by a Special officer or other Government Official, so appointed to administer the affairs of the superseded society/s.On a reference made by D. RAJU, J. (as His Lordship then was) on the question whether it was open to the Division Bench in the abovementioned case A. Natarajan v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1991-II-LLJ-296 (Mad-DB) to characterise the Full Bench judgment in Tamilarasan's case (supra), per incuriam or obiter dictum the matter was once again referred to a Larger Bench and it has been held by its judgment dated November 22, 1993, that writ petition is not maintainable against Co-operative Societies.

When the matter stood thus in a writ petition filed against the orders passed by a Housing Co-operative Society, a learned single Judge of this Court, entertained the said writ petition holding that allowing the authorities concerned to take shelter under the decision of Tamilarasan case (supra), would amount to encouraging to manipulate, and to undermine the very principle of law. Again, a Division Bench of this Court in R. Varadarajan v. Special Officer, Kadambathur Co-operative Land Development Bank, Thiruvallur, 1995 (1) LLN 265, while answering a question about the maintainability of a writ petition against a Co-operative Society, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, AIR 1976 SCC 425 : 1976-I-LLJ-274 wherein it has been held that "Article 226 is wide enough to affect even private individuals", and finding that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural Justice, set aside the order. In the same way, a learned single Judge of this Court in M. Maylvaganan and others v. Government of India and others, 1995 (I) LLN 268 entertained a writ petition, and taking note of the monstrosity of the situation, quashed the impugned order, hold