Bajpai, J.- l. This reference steams from a humdrum case of an employee of a Co-operative Marketing Society, whose services have been brought to an end by accepting his resignation and thereafter the employee had taken practically all possible alternative stands by saying that firstly he had not at all submitted any resignation; or if there is any, the same must be forged or even if it bears his signature, he had simply written the same and kept it and never intended to submit it to the authority for acceptance. According to him, it was nothing but a surprise as to how the same could reach the authorities for further action. However, we are at present not concerned with the facts of the case in as much as only the following three questions of law have been referred for being answered by us and we have to confine ourselves to the same :-

(i) Whether Co-operative Society, registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a statutory body?

(ii) Whether a writ of mandamus, direction or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution by a High Court against a Co-operative Society registered under M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ?

(iii) Whether the High Court can issue an appropriate writ, direction or order against a Co-operative Society or its officer, who has, in violation of the Act or rules or byelaws, dismissed its employee or termination his services, for reinstatement and I or with back wages?

2. The Division Bench of this Court was inclined to make this reference in view of certain observations in Dukhuram v. Co-operative Agricultural Association Ltd. 1961 JLJ 786 = AIR 1961 MP 289 and Ramnath v. State of M. P. & others 1959 JLJ 459 = AIR 1959 MP 218, which prima facie appear to be divergent. In Dukhuram's case (supra) it has been observed and held by the Division Bench of this Court that a Co-operative Society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, in Ramnath Sharma's case (supra). it was held by another Division Bench of this Court that a Co-operative Society, registered in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, can not be treated as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. According to the Division Bench, a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not a statutory body. In this back ground, this reference has arisen and we shall deal with all the three questions referred to us for being answered.

3. Before any institution can be said to be a statutory body, it must be created by a Statute and must owe its existence to the Statute. This the primary thing which has to be seen for deciding the first question. It will be necessary to make a distinction between an institution which is not created by or under a Statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of it's affairs, and the one which is created by the Statute and owes it's existence to the same. We come across a number of institutions which though net created by or under any statute, are after formation governed by certain statutory provisions regulating their affairs. Simply by doing so, they do not become statutory bodies. For instance, a company being incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act cannot be said to be a body created by the Companies Act A company so registered and incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act cannot be a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is nothing but a body created in accordance with and governed by the provisions of the Statute. The same is the case of a Cooperative Society According to the requirements of law, for the time being in force, certain number of persons form a society with certain aims and objects. That Socie