JUDGMENT :

BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.

1. The cleavage of opinions between the two sets of perspectives on the issue as to whether a 'Goa State Cooperative Bank' is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and whether the said Bank is discharging any public function, so as to render it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is the issue placed for consideration of this Full Bench.

The two division benches of this Court, in Ganesh Morto Naik vs. Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in another case of Surendra J. Kalangutkar vs. Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. ruled that the Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GSCB) is a 'State' for the purpose of Article 12 and that since it is discharging public functions, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the judgment delivered at Aurangabad, in case of Shri Suresh Bhanudas Shinde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 334 of 2018 has taken a contradictory view, when confronted with the issue whether the District Cooperative Bank Ltd. is a 'State', in the backdrop of the grievances raised by one of its employees and held that the said Bank is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and even the exercise of writ jurisdiction was refused since the contractual terms between the employer and employee were held to be not subjected to any control of the State Government. Relegating the petitioner to avail other remedies available under the law, the writ petition was dismissed. Running parallel to the said view is the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat, AIR 1993 Bom 91, which ruled that Multi State Co-operative Bank registered under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12, though it is governed by the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and it performs public functions.

2. In view of the aforesaid conflicting decisions, the Division Bench (Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharati Dangre, JJ.) of this Court while dealing with Writ Petition No. 92/2021, Vassudev Madkaikar and Others vs. State of Goa and Others deemed it appropriate to resolve the said contentious issues, as such issues recur in various matters, relating not only to the GSCB but also other Cooperative banks in the State of Goa and referred the matter for a decision by a Larger Bench. In terms of the said reference, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the Larger Bench in terms of Chapter I, Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules.

3. The question for our consideration, in light of the reference order can be precisely and accurately framed as under:

(i) Whether Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. is a 'State' or any instrumentality thereof, for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) In case GSCB is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12, whether it performs any public functions, which would warrant issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus in discharge of its performance of the public functions.

Brief submissions:

The brief submissions advanced in favour, and against the reference question by respective parties:

4. In resolving the conflict, we are assisted by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri S.D. Lotlikar alongwith Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar representing the petitioner, the learned Advocate General Mr. Devidas J. Pangam with Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate and also by Mr. Girish Sardessai for the Respondent No. 3-GSCB and Mr. Vivek Rodrigues for the Intervenor. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Agni in support of the proposition that GSCB is a 'State' and a writ would lie against it.

5. From the erudite submissions advanced by the illustrious counsels, though prolix in nature, the crystallate which emerges from the concentrate of distillate is capitulated and reproduced