A writ petition is not maintainable against a society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, but it is maintainable against the Registrar or the Additional Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for challenging an order passed by them in violation of the provisions of Section 26 (1D) of the Act.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The meaningful question whether a Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 , is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been reagitated before the Full Bench.

2. In view of the pristinely legal nature of the issue aforesaid, it is unnecessary to recount the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner Ajmer Singh was employed as a Field Inspector in the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter called Markfed) which admittedly is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Managing Director of the Markfed by his order dated the 13th of November, 1978 (annexure-P. 2) dismissed the petitioner from service and his appeal against the said order was in turn dismissed by its Administrator vide annexure-P. 5. The writ petition sought to challenge the orders of dismissal and its affirmance in appeal. At the motion stage, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent-Markfed that no writ petition was maintainable against a Co-operative Society. On behalf of the petitioner, however, reliance was firmly placed on the D.B. judgment in Kulwant Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1972 Pun LJ 399. The Motion Bench apparently discerning some conflict of authority admitted the present petition for a hearing by a Full Bench.

3. Now it appears to me that within this jurisdiction there is such a long line of unbroken precedent covering the legal issue before us that it would be apparently wasteful to launch on a digression on first principles. The matter had first come up directly for decision before Tuli J., in Dharam Pal Soni V/s. State of Punjab, 1969 Serv LR 349 (Punj), and after exhaustively examining the point both on principle and precedent the learned Judge concluded that a Co-operative Society being a non-statutory body a writ petition against it was not maintainable. The aforesaid view was strenuously challenged in a Letters Patent appeal but was conclusively repelled by the Bench in Dharam Pal Soni V/s. State of Punjab, (1973) 2 Serv LR 845 (Punj). Subsequently Dharam Pal Soni s case (supra) has been unreservedly followed by learned single Judges of this Court in Krishan Lal Pahwa V/s. State of Haryana, 1974 SLWR 298: (1975 Lab IC 672); Dilavar Singh V/s. Administrator, Khanna Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd., 1974 SLWR 939 (Punj) and Anup Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1975 SLWR 27 (Punj). Lastly directly covering the issue is the Division Bench judgment in P.S. Saini V/s. State of Punjab, C.W.P. No. 4410 of 1979 decided on the 23rd of February, 1980, wherein it has been specifically held that Markfed being a Co-operative Society a writ petition against it was not maintainable and the same was consequently dismissed in limine.

4. Now the reliance of Mr. Khoji on Kulwant Singh s case, (1972 Pun LJ 399) (supra) both before the Motion Bench as also before us for holding a contrary view does not appear to me as at all well conceived. A close analysis of the said Division Bench judgment would plainly indicate that the learned Judges did not at all dissent from the view consistently held within this Court. Indeed therein express reference has been made to Dharam Pal Soni s case, (1969 Serv LR 349) and it was distinguished specifically on the ground that the observations made therein were not applicable to the facts of the case. On an in-depth examination of the judgment, it appears to us that it is no authority whatsoever for the proposition that a writ petition would be maintainable against a Co-operative Society. Indeed it is evident that the learned Judges allowed the writ petition primarily and indeed solely on the ground that the case disclosed a flagrant and blatant violation of the statutory provision of S.26 (B) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called the Act). It is elementary that where the infraction of a statutory provision arises, the writ jurisd