A co-operative society is not an 'other authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, no writ can lie against it under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER :- The Srivilliputtur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the mills, is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of 15 members, as mentioned in by-law 20 of the mills. Under by-law 20 (15) one representative of the workers of the mills elected from among themselves and co-opted by the Board of Directors is entitled to be a member of the Board of Directors. The petitioner, K. Ramraj, employed as an oiler in the fly-frame department of the mills, was elected by the workers of the mills in an election held on 26-12-1968, to fill up the vacancy caused by the expiry of the term of the prior representative of the workers on 31-12-1968. The question of his co-option as a member of the Board of Directors, as required in bylaw 20(15) of the mills, was in agenda of the meeting of the Board of Directors on 16-1-1969, but the meeting was adjourned after the first two items of the agenda were disposed of and before the other items of the agenda, including the co-option of the petitioner as a member of the Board of Directors could be taken up for consideration. The adjourned meeting took place on 30-1-1969 but the petitioner was not co-opted as a member of the Board of Directors in view of the fact that he became disqualified to become a member of the Board according to the standing orders of the mills by reason of his having been punished by a warning given to him by the factory manager on 22-1-1969. The petitioner has come up to this court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors on 30-1-1969 and for granting him a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to co-opt him as a member of the Board of Directors of the mills.

2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that a punishment of warning for misconduct would, under the relevant standing orders of the mills, disqualify him from being a member of the Board of Directors. But the case of the petitioner is that he was never warned by the management for any misconduct, that the action of the Board of Directors in not co-opting him is mala fide, that he has been victimised since certain members of the Board, and in particular, the ex-chairman, did not like his entry into the Board, that the alleged punishment of warning has been got up subsequently and that he was served with the order only on the midnight of 30th January 1969.

3. It is necessary to refer to the circumstances under which the petitioner was given the punishment of warning. The petitioner went on casual leave from 24-12-1968 to 30-12-1968. On 31-12-1968, he sent a telegram from Madras to the manager requesting him to extend his leave from 31-12-1968 to 4-1-1969 and this leave was granted by the factory manager. The petitioner's case is that he was taken ill and that he again sent a telegram from Vellore requesting for extension of leave from 5-1-1969 to 18-1-1969. It should be noted that this telegram was sent by the petitioner only on 6-1-1969, though the leave already granted to him expired even on 4-1-1969. This factory manager passed an order on 6-1-1969, refusing the request for leave and issued a memo dated 8-1-1969 to the petitioner about it calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and why he should not be punished. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation in two days. The memo was sent by registered post to the address given by the petitioner to the mills, but it was returned with a note that the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known. The memo was subsequently given to the petitioner in person on 19-1-1969, when he returned to duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20-1-1969. The factory manager has passed an order on the reverse of the memo. According to the petitioner, the factory manager orally informed him that further action on the memo issued by him had been dropped and advised him not to act in the same manner in future. The follow