Writ petitions against private co-operative societies are not maintainable under Article 226 unless they demonstrate public authority status.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent No.1 and Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 29.5.2001, passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.92 of 2006 and order dated 20.9.1996, passed by respondent No.2.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the co-operative society, which is running the bank, is a private society, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the following judgments :-

(i) Krishna Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No.2329 of 2019)

(ii) Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others [2019 (2) ILR Punjab and Haryana 1036]

(iii) Anand Prakash Vs. The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing facts of the case, submitted that although this is a private co-operative society, but he is challenging the order of the Arbitrator passed on 20.9.1996 and the order of the Tribunal.

5. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was posted as Class IV employee and member of the society (respondent No.4). Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh was Secretary of the society till he was suspended by the society. He was also posted in the Establishment Section of the Bank and prepared the pay bills of the employees of the bank as well as made deductions from the salary of the employees towards the repayment of loan taken by the employees from the society.

6. On 10.8.1994, the bank sanctioned credit limit to the society for the year 1994-95. On 20.8.1994, the list was submitted by the society to the Branch Manager of the bank showing the amounts of loan outstanding against individual members of the society, which list was then forwarded to the Senior Branch Manager of the bank.

7. On 2.9.1994, the Branch Manager of the bank sent the list dated 20.8.1994, prepared by the Secretary to the Enquiry Officer, Special Investigation Branch Co-operative, Lucknow, which was certified by the District Assistant Registrar, Basti. The Secretary of the society directed the members to check the interest levied on loan amount, who had received the passbooks and in case of any discrepancy, file objections, since the documents of the society were being checked by him as the enquiry had commenced. The Secretary-Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh absconded with the relevant records of the society.

8. The Chairman of the Enquiry Committee required Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh to produce the record of the society, who did not handover the relevant record of the society, except some records in respect of individual members upto the year 1986 and the balance sheet up to the year 1993-94. Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh forged and fabricated document dated 25.11.1994 to the effect that he had furnished all the records of the society to Sri Hira Lal Mishra, Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. The said document had never been signed by Sri Hira Lal Mishra.

9. On 18.10.1994, on detection of embezzlement, the auditors made a report to the District Assistant Registrar, recommending the seizure of record and office of the society. On 27.10.1994, the District Assistant Registrar issued order under Section 37 of the Act, appointing A.D.C.O. instead of seizing the record, lodged F.I.R against Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh, who was then suspended by the bank from the services. Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh did not deposit the amount shown by him, which had been recovered fro