Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion:The judicial trend clearly indicates that writs are not maintainable against society or private bodies solely because they undertake societal or educational functions. The key determinant is whether the body discharges public or statutory functions, or is an instrumentality of the State. Without fulfilling these criteria, such bodies are considered private, and the writ jurisdiction does not extend to them. This maintains the distinction between public and private entities, ensuring that judicial review remains within the realm of public law only where appropriate ["Shyam Sunder VS Crpf Employees Educational Society, Through Its President Cum Director General, Crpf - Delhi"], ["Prem Chand VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"].
In the realm of constitutional remedies in India, writ petitions under Article 226 serve as powerful tools to enforce fundamental rights and public duties. However, a common query arises: writ against society not having public functions not maintainable. This question strikes at the heart of judicial scrutiny over private entities like societies. Generally, courts have held that such writs are not maintainable unless the society discharges public functions or qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12. This blog post delves into the legal principles, key tests, exceptions, and landmark cases to provide clarity.
Note: This article offers general information based on judicial precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs like mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus for enforcing fundamental rights or any other legal right. Yet, its scope is not boundless. Writs are primarily meant to enforce public duties or functions performed by authorities or bodies with a public law elementS. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304.
A private society registered under laws like the Societies Registration Act typically operates in the private domain. If it does not perform public functions, it falls outside writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has clarified: Writs under Article 226 are primarily meant to enforce public duties or functions performed by authorities or bodies with a public law elementS. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304.
The cornerstone is the public function test. Courts examine whether the society's activities are akin to those of the State in its sovereign capacity, such as education, health services, or regulation closely linked to statutory duties. Purely private, contractual, or voluntary functions do not qualify.
For instance, The courts have adopted a public function test, where functions similar to or closely related to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity are deemed public functionsS. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304. Activities like internal management or member disputes lack this public element RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304.
To be amenable to writs, a society must often be an 'authority' or 'instrumentality of the State' under Article 12. Mere registration, funding, or regulation does not suffice. The mere fact that a society is registered under a particular law or receives some funding does not automatically make it a public authority or an instrumentality of the StateS. S. Rana VS Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 2006 4 Supreme 588.
Deep and pervasive State control, monopoly status, or statutory creation is required. Societies under the Societies Registration Act, without such attributes, are private bodies S. S. Rana VS Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 2006 4 Supreme 588.
Cooperative societies frequently face similar challenges. In one case, the court applied tests from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid and held: A co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 cannot be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the ConstitutionK. Marappan VS The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Another - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 2609. The society failed all six tests—financial control, functional character, etc.—rendering the writ not maintainable K. Marappan VS The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Another - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 2609.
Similarly, Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society is not maintainable. However, as stated each case depends upon the facts and circumstances of its ownK. Marappan VS The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Another - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 2609. Another ruling noted: The respondent No. 1-Society does not answer any of the afore-mentioned testsKrishan Kant VS Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3141, emphasizing statutory or public functions Krishan Kant VS Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3141.
In a Kerala case under the Co-operative Societies Act, a writ was allowed for repayment of a fixed deposit, but only due to specific financial obligations—not general disputes MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VS CHOONDACHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 110.
Private unaided minority schools exemplify this principle. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution. A service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee can be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the ConstitutionSt. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - 2022 Supreme(SC) 848. The court stressed: A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions, requiring a public law nexus St. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - 2022 Supreme(SC) 848.
Even education, if purely private without State control, lacks the requisite element St. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - 2022 Supreme(SC) 848.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) illustrates nuanced application. Writs are maintainable for public functions like national team selection, but not private contracts. Insofar as the public functions are concerned a writ petition would be maintainable against BCCI... as regards private matters having no public law element, a writ would not lieSHALABH SRIVASTAVA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2013 Supreme(All) 241Shalabh Srivastava VS Union of India and Others - 2013 Supreme(All) 237.
In a disciplinary case: The impugned decision whereby BCCI has chosen to impose penalty on petitioner—Cannot be treated to be an act in discharging of public duty—Decision in question is in respect of an individual cricket player... under a contract for playing IPL matchesSHALABH SRIVASTAVA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2013 Supreme(All) 241. Thus, internal rules without public impact are private law matters Shalabh Srivastava VS Union of India and Others - 2013 Supreme(All) 237.
Courts recognize exceptions:- Statutory or sovereign-like functions: If a society performs duties closely tied to State roles, writs may apply S. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240.- Public importance with nexus: Acts directly impacting public rights RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304.- Deep State control: Qualifying as 'State' under Article 12 S. S. Rana VS Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 2006 4 Supreme 588.
However, If the society’s functions are purely private, contractual, or voluntary without a significant public law element, the writ petition is not maintainableS. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304. Funding alone is insufficient: Funding or some regulatory oversight alone do not make a society a public authorityS. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240S. S. Rana VS Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 2006 4 Supreme 588.
Understanding these boundaries prevents futile litigation and directs parties to appropriate forums. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, as each case turns on facts.
References:1. S. Shobha VS Muthoot Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 240: Body without public duty not amenable to writs.2. RAJBIR SURAJBHAN SINGH VS CHAIRMAN, INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, MUMBAI - 2019 5 Supreme 304: Writs require public functions.3. S. S. Rana VS Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 2006 4 Supreme 588: No automatic 'State' status for societies.4. Additional cases: St. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - 2022 Supreme(SC) 848, K. Marappan VS The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Another - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 2609, Krishan Kant VS Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3141, SHALABH SRIVASTAVA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2013 Supreme(All) 241, Shalabh Srivastava VS Union of India and Others - 2013 Supreme(All) 237.
#WritJurisdiction #PublicFunctions #Article226
It is a settled legal principle that a writ petition against a body constituting private character would not be maintainable however, a writ can lie against a "person", provided, it discharges a public function or performs a "public statutory duty". ... In the view of the above discussions of facts and law, the instant petition is not maintainable as the respondents do not fall under the category of "State" and within the ambit of A....
It is a settled legal principle that a writ petition against a body constituting private character would not be maintainable however, a writ can lie against a "person", provided, it discharges a public function or performs a "public statutory duty". ... In the view of the above discussions of facts and law, the instant petition is not maintainable as the respondents do not fall under the category of `State" and within the ambit of A....
Even if there is violation of the Sewa Niyamawali or principles of natural justice, a writ petition would not lie against a private registered society, unless the society is discharging functions essentially of a public character or there is any violation of a statute. 9. ... No doubt, in Chandra Bhan Dubey (supra), the Supreme Court does seem to obliterate the divide between public duties and private duties or public functions and ....
Army Welfare Society are not instrumentality of State in terms of Article 12 of Constitution of India, thus, writ petition is not maintainable. ... An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. ... Issues arising out of a contract between an employee and private body like termination, promotion or remuneration do not in....
An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. ... institution will not be maintainable. ... by any statutory provisions and also that an educational institution may be performing myriad functions touching upon various facets of public duty but a contract of service being an offer and acceptance of terms between two private entities would not#HL_....
is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. ... ; (3) Do the functions of the Society partake to statutory functions or public functions ?; and (4) Can it be characterised as public Authority ? 10. The respondent No. 1-Society does not answer any of the afore-mentioned tests. ... In the instant case, the Special Officer was appointed ....
An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. ... discharging a public duty or function, a writ petition otherwise would be maintainable. ... of service, a writ petition against the said communication of 04.04.2022 would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ... There is a thin line between....
An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. ... The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the writ petition is not maintainable against the society, as is being argued by the petitioner, and it is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ... Thus, following the said judgment, wh....
The petitioner has not pleaded or demonstrated in his writ petition that respondent No.3 is State-funded, State-controlled, or performs public functions akin to governmental functions. There is no assertion of statutory duty or deep and pervasive State control. ... It is trite law that, a writ under Article 226 lies against the State, instrumentality of the State (Article 12), or bodies discharging public/statutory duties. A Cooperative Society is #H....
Veena Pal seeking Writ of Mandamus commanding the Appellant-Society to pay the benefits flowing from the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission would not be maintainable as the Appellant Society is not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. ... We may sum up our final conclusions as under:- (a) An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or publi....
This Court considered the issue in reference to the element of public function which should be akin to the work performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. This Court took the view that every public function/public duty would not make a writ petition to be maintainable against an “authority” or a “person” referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the functions are such which are akin to the functions of the State or are sovereign in nature. Few relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted as under for ready reference :-
But, the Society contended that no writ petition is maintainable against a cooperative society. The Society pleaded that it could not pay the amount due to the bank within time due to financial crunch. The Society also contended that the writ jurisdiction of the court cannot be exercised to grant the relief prayed for by the bank when alternative statutory remedy is available to the bank. 3. The Society filed counter affidavit in the writ petition admitting the liability to pay the amount to the bank.
At the same time, as regards private matters having no public law element, a writ would not lie.” Insofar as the public functions are concerned a writ petition would be maintainable against BCCI. “...There are many which are purely private in nature. Again in paragraph 17, it has been reiterated that many other functions of BCCI may be in the field of private law such private contracts, internal rules not affecting the public at large etc.
Insofar as the public functions are concerned a writ petition would be maintainable against BCCI. "...There are many which are purely private in nature. Again in paragraph 17, it has been reiterated that many other functions of BCCI may be in the field of private law such private contracts, internal rules not affecting the public at large etc. At the same time, as regards private matters having no public law element, a writ would not lie."
Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society is not maintainable. However, as stated each case depends upon the facts and circumstances of its own. So, to decide the question of maintainability, the learned single Judge will consider and decide the cases on maintainability in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
