The court established that even if a society cannot be characterized as a State, in certain special circumstances, the writ would lie against such private bodies to enforce statutory provisions, and found a violation of the Constitutional Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

K. Veeraraghavan, J.

This writ appeal is listed today for final hearing and we heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for second respondent.

2. The present writ appeal arises out of the impugned order passed in W.P.(MD) No.8750 of 2006 dated 12. 2006, the operative portion of the same is reproduced below.

"(12) Applying the above principles to the facts of this case and the petitioners suspension beyond one year is held unsustainable by this Court in W.P.No.946 of 2004, dated 10. 2004. The second respondent is bound to pay full salary to the petitioner from the date of expiry of one year period i.e., 8. 2003 to 112. 2004. The order of suspension prior to 8. 2003, can be regulated by the respondent in accordance with the rules. Hence, the second respondent is directed to pay full salary to the petitioner from 8. 2003 to 112. 2004, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

The appellant is the second respondent in the impugned order in W.P. No.8750 of 2006 and the first respondent is second respondent in the appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition is the first respondent in this writ appeal.

3. We refer to the facts of the case as put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai. It is stated that the appellant is the Nazarath Urban Co-opera-tive Bank Ltd, and hence maintainability of the writ petition itself is not correct according to the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the impugned order passed on 8. 2002 by the appellant herein was a suspension order against the first respondent and it is to be seen as it is and the consequences of the suspension order according to the learned counsel for the appellant is not automatic. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.946 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent seeking for the following prayer:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings –Nil - dated 8. 2002 and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.

4. This Honourable Court was pleased to pass an order in the above Mentioned W.P.No.946 of 2004 dated 10. 2004 and ruled as follows:

"The suspension of the petitioner in each petition in my opinion is therefore opposed to byelaw is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed under costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed."

5. The order in W.P. No. 946 of 2004 was not agitated by way of Appeal by the appel-lants herein and thus the said judgment attained finality. This Court entertained the W.P. No. 946 of 2004, and passed an order dated 10. 2004, after considering the factual matrix and the law and quashed the order of suspension of the first respondent dated 8. 2004 which is impugned order in W .P. No. 946 of 2004. Subsequently, in the order in W.P.No.946 of 2004 dated 10. 2004, the suspension being quashed, the appellant herein allowed the first respondent to join duty on 20.12.2004 but refused to pay the salary for the period commencing from 8. 2002 to 112. 2004 i.e., from the date of suspension till he was allowed to join duty which is not the fault of the first respondent and only the appellant prevented the first respondent from performing his duty and when the order of suspension is quashed by this Court the natural consequences has to follow. The first respondent sent a lawyers notice dated 22. 2005 demanding the said arrears of salary as a consequence of this