S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. The two petitions have come up before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court constituted by one of us (S.K. Dubey,J.) and Shri S.K. Chawla, J. Before the Division Bench, during the course of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the respondent No.1, the Madhya Pradesh Dugdha Maha Sangh Sahkari Maryadit, Bhopal, was registered on 13.5.1980 by the Registrar, M.P. Co-operative Societies, Bhopal (for short, the 'Registrar') under section 9 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the' Act'), and was classified as 'Federal Society' vide registration certificate (Annexure R/4), whereby bye- laws (Annexure R/5) were also approved under section 9 of the Act by the Registrar. The respondent No.2 was registered as a Co- operative Society on 4.7.1983 and classified as 'Central Society,' which also had its own approved bye-laws, Annexure RI7. The two societies are not rendering any important public service nor are carrying out governmental activity and governmental functions of vital importance; therefore, the respondents are not "the State" within the dynamics of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and, hence, are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as held by a Division Bench of this Court at Indore Bench in an unreported decision in M.P. No. 836/1988, Dilipkumar v. State of M.P., decided on 19.4.1990. On the other hand, the petitioners relied two unreported Division Bench decisions rendered at the same Bench in M.P. No. 1139 of 1987, Krishnakant v. M.P. Dugdha Mahasangh, decided on 28.8. 1990 and M.P. No. 1159/1987, Chandrakant v. Appellate Authority & others, decided on 9.1.1991, wherein the respondent No.1 has been held to be "the State." As there was a conflict between the two sets of above-said decisions, the Division Bench, hearing the aforesaid petitions, to get an authoritative pronouncement, referred the matter to Hon'bie the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate larger Bench for resolving the difference: hence, this reference.

2. Where the two Co-operative Societies, registered under S.9 of the Act, are, in essence, instrumentalities and agencies of the State and, consequently, amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court, is the question to be decided. If the answer to this question is in the negative, whether the High Court can issue an appropriate writ direction or order against the Co-operative Society or its. officers who act in violation of the Act or the rules or the bye-laws and/or fail to discharge statutory public duty, is also the question, which we have been called upon to answer in this reference.

3. To appreciate a few facts relevant to the questions aforesaid, deserve to be noticed. The two petitioners are presently holding posts of Village Organiser under respondent No.2 at Banmore, District Morena. The respondent No.1 by an order dated 30.9.1992 transferred the two petitioners, sending them on deputation to Raigarh and Sarguja respectively for working in the Integrated Tribal Dairy Projects, which are not under the organisation of the two respondents. The transfer order is challenged as mala fide, being in violation of the statutory service rules governing the terms and conditions of the employment, which are approved by the Registrar under section 55 (1) of the Act and are known as "MADHYA PRADESH DUGDHA MAHA SANGHA (SAHKARI) MARYADIT, KARMACHARI BHARTI, VARGIKARAN TATHA SEWA SHAR TEN VINIY AM, 1985. "

4. Before we proceed to have a look to the bye-laws of the respondents No.1 and 2 for determining the questions, it would be appropriate 10 state that Government of M.P. through its Veterinary Department was carrying on in certain areas of the State the activity of supply of milk through its offices. On 22nd March 1975, the Government of Madhya Paradesh for carrying on the said business of milk and its products, incorporated a Company, by name, M.P. State Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., registered