Objection raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition upheld.

K. Venkataswami, J.

1. These two writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioner who was an employee of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Stores. The first writ petition is directed against an order of the 2nd respondent, namely, Registrar of Co-operative Societies dismissing the petitioner's revision application against the order of suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. The second writ petition is directed against the final order of dismissal from service.

2. The petitioner appeared in person and argued the matter. He fairly stated that in view of the final order of dismissal, the writ petition challenging the order of suspension has become infructuous without going into the merits. No costs.

3. Regarding writ petition No. 13070 of 1986, Mr. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the learned Counsel, the relief prayed for is only against the 3rd respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 are impleaded as parties just to make it appear that some relief is also asked for against them.

4. As I am inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, I do not consider that I should set out the facts in detail or discuss the points raised by the petitioner in challenging the order of dismissal passed by the 3rd respondent.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the relationship between the Co-operative Society and its employees is that of a master and servant and that therefore even if there is a wrongful dismissal of the employee, the Court cannot interfere in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is open to the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute or to avail himself of the alternative remedy available under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. In support of his contention, he relied on two unreported Division Bench Judgments of this Court in K. Kanniappan v. The Sriperuabudur Taluk Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. W.P. No. 677 of 1977, Or. dated 27th September, 1979). He also placed before me the judgment of Nainar Sundaram, J. who has followed the above referred Division Bench judgments in the case K.H. Baskaran and Ors. v. State Bank of India Staff Co-operative Society Ltd. rep. by its Secretary, Madras and Ors. reported in 1984 Writ L.R. page 96. The learned Counsel also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Ors.. This judgment of the Supreme Court has also been noticed and relied on by Nainar Sundaram, J. in his judgment referred to above.

6. The principle laid down in the Division Bench Judgments referred to above is to above is to the following effect:

Notwithstanding the wide amplitude of Article 226 when compared with Article 32 of the Constitution, a writ can issue only against the state or authority contemplated under Article 12 and not to a company registered under the Companies Act or the Co-operative Societies Act. The relationship between the co-operative society and its employees is that of a master and servant and that, therefore, even if there is a wrongful dismissal of the employee the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing reinstatement or a declaration that the termination of service is wrongful....

In the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is held as follows:

There is a distinction between a corporation established by or under an Act and a body incorporated under an Act. The distinction was brought out by this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardarr Singh Raghuvanshi. It is observed:

A company incorporated under the Companies Act is riot created by the Companies Act but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is thus a well marked distinction between a body which, after coming into existence, is gov