A writ of mandamus is not maintainable against a cooperative society for retirement benefits of its employees unless there is violation of statutory provisions or fundamental rights.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits of the petitioner such as earned leave salary, provident fund, gratuity and other monetary benefits.

2. Though the relief is sought generally against all the respondents, practically, the liability to pay the retirement benefits of the petitioner lies on the 3^rd respondent which is a Co-operative Society.

3. Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader raised the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition against the 3^rd respondent and he also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1885 of 2025, dated

28.08.2025 and also a Full Bench decision of this Court in K.Marappan vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689

4. On the other hand, Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1167 of 2016 dated 27.03.2025.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the decisions relied upon by the respective counsels.

6. A Full Bench of this Court has considered the aspect as to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 against a Co- operative Society in the case of K.Marappan vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2006 (4) CTC 689) and laid down various guidelines which reads as under:

“(i)If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a “State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be 'an authority' within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a Society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of Writ Petition.

(ii)Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it is held that a cooperative society carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution;

.....

(iii)Even if a society cannot be characterised as a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a Writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a 'person' or 'an authority' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity.

(iv)A society, which is not a 'State' would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions.

(v)Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a cooperative society which cannot be characterised as a “State” a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above.

(vi)The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a “State' the service conditions of its employees