A co-operative society is not an authority or agency or instrumentality of Government to attract Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
WRIT - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - WRIT JURISDICTION - WHETHER WRIT LIES AGAINST A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:

The question referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J, as His Lordship then was) is "Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?"
Finding of the Court:

A co-operative society is not an authority nor an instrumentality or agency of the Government to attract Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A co-operative society is a body which after having come into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2. A co-operative society does not owe its very existence to any statute which would be the fountain-head of its powers. 3. Even if there is no statute a co-operative society can have a legal existence. 4. The bye-laws of a co-operative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. 5. When the services of an Indian Administrative Officer are placed at the disposal of a co-operative society, he was not discharging the functions as a public servant.
Final Decision: The question referred to us is answered in the negative.

Judgment :-

Venkataswami, J.

The question that has been referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J, as His Lordship then was) is

"Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?" *

2. This question seems to loom large for quite some time not only in this Court but in the other High Courts as well, as could be seen from the cases cited by the counsel on both sides.

3. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 4124, 4154 and 4167 of 1986 and Mr. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. Nos. 607 and 608 of 1984, have advanced main arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the affirmative.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M. R. Narayanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has advanced arguments inviting this Court to answer the questions in the negative.

5. Before giving our answer to the question referred to us, it will be fruitful to refer the cases cited on both sides and also point out the principles laid down in those cases.

6. We may also state that the counsel inviting for an affirmative answer have derived support substantially from the following judgments of the Supreme Court and the principles laid down thereunder :

a) Sukhadev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975-I-LLJ-399)

b) Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujid Sehravardi (1981-I-LLJ-103)

c) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (1979-II-LLJ-217)

d) P. K. Ramachandra lyer v. Union of India (1984-I-LLJ-314).

7. Let us now take the cases cited by the counsel who are advocating the proposition that a writ will lie against a co-operative Society.

8. In Venkatachalam v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras (W.A. No. 74 of 1970). Veeraswami, C.J., speaking for the Bench has observed as follows :

"The Special Officer is one appointed under Section 72 and as such, he is a statutory Officer and, therefore, he should be regarded as a public authority. Apart from that, Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to issue of writs only to a public authority. The power extends also to issue directions to any person." *

In Ramanathan v. President, Perambalur Co-operative Milk Supply Society Ltd., Peram balur, Trichy District (W.A. No. 2811 of 1976). Mohan, J. (as His Lordship then was), in passing has negative an argument that no writ will lie against a Co-operative Society. The learned Judge observed as follows :

"It is too late in the date of contend that in a matter like this, no write will lie." *

In Varadarajan v. The Special Officer, T.U.C.S. Ltd., (1985) Writ L.R. 251), one of us (Venkataswami, J.) following the Division Bench ruling in Venkatachalam v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras (supra) has taken the view that in cases where the Co-operative Society is under the control of a Special Officer, a writ would lie.

9. In Madan Mohan v. State 1966 AIR(Calcutta) 23, a learned single Judge of that Court has taken the view that a writ will lie against a Co-operative Society by observing thus :-

"The Managing Committee of the Society is to be constituted under Section23 of the Act (see S. 2(m)) and in accordance with the Rules and also the Bye-laws.Such Managing Committee is therefore created by the Act and not merely registered. The cases of the Managing Committee of the School and of the sponsored colleges referred to above, might be categorised as not being created by the statute or statutory rules.By several provisions of the Act (which I have given copiously in the beginning) and specially by Section 25, 86 and 129 of the same. I am inclined to hold that the management of the affairs and the activities of such Societies, as in the instant Rule, are entirely controlled by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society (respondent No. 2) who is undoubtedly a public authority. Such Affairs, therefore, cannot be Private affairs. It might be stated that Rules 43 and 44 and specially the opening

Click Here to Read the rest of this document