1982 (1) TMI 207 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, which is an instrumentality or agency of the State, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited (Respondent No. 3) is an instrumentality or agency of the State.
3. Whether a writ of certiorari can be issued against the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited.
4. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amenability of a Society Registered Under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act to Writ Jurisdiction:
The court examined whether a society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, which functions as an instrumentality or agency of the State, is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court referenced the Full Bench judgment in Ajmer Singh v. Registrar Co-operative Societies Punjab, which had concluded that a society merely registered under the Act is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Som Parkash Rakhi v. Union of India and Ajoy Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, necessitated a reassessment. It was held that if a body is an instrumentality or agency of the State, it would be an 'authority' under Article 12 and thus subject to writ jurisdiction.

2. Instrumentality or Agency of the State:
The court applied the tests laid out in Ajay Hasia's case to determine whether the Mortgage Bank is an instrumentality or agency of the State. These tests include factors such as the extent of State control, financial assistance, monopoly status, and the nature of functions performed. The court found that none of these tests were conclusively satisfied in the case of the Mortgage Bank. The Mortgage Bank was not created by statute but was merely registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. It was concluded that the Mortgage Bank is not an instrumentality or agency of the State.

3. Issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:
The court examined whether a writ of certiorari could be issued against the Mortgage Bank. It was emphasized that the writ of certiorari traditionally applies to bodies performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The court referenced authoritative precedents, including the Electricity Commissioners' case and Ridge v. Baldwin, to assert that certiorari is intended for bodies acting in a public capacity and under a duty to act judicially. The court concluded that the Mortgage Bank, being a private entity registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and not performing public duties, is not amenable to a writ of certiorari.

4. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus:
The court also considered whether a writ of mandamus could be issued against the Mortgage Bank. It was noted that mandamus is available against private persons only if they are under a public duty imposed by statute. The court referenced Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual, which held that mandamus does not lie against a company registered under the Companies Act unless it has public duties imposed by statute. The court found that the Mortgage Bank does not have such public duties and thus, a writ of mandamus is not maintainable against it.

Conclusion:
1. A society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, if it is an instrumentality or agency of the State, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited is not an instrumentality or agency of the State.
3. A writ of certiorari cannot be issued against the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited.
4. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited.

The petition was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs due to the complex nature of the issues involved.