2014 (12) TMI 1385 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment in the post of Senior Manager (Dairy) in a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969? - HELD THAT - Whether a body or authority is a State or not is a mixed question of fact which has to be examined, taking into consideration different factors including the constitution, finance, function, control etc. For deciding the said issue, the Court has to essentially enter into various facts. There being no foundation in the Writ Petition, it is neither necessary nor desirable to enter into the said issue. Thus, there being no foundation in the Writ Petition, the question as to whether respondents 2 to 4 are 'authorities' within the meaning of Article 12, cannot be considered. The power of the High Court to issue certain writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not confined to the traditional powers of the English Court to issue writs. Under Article 226, power has been given to the High Court to issue writ to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the question regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society in A. UMARANI VERSUS REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS. 2004 (7) TMI 693 - SUPREME COURT . The Writ Petition was filed in the High Court by the employees of the Co-operative Society. The learned Single Judge dismissed some of the Writ Petitions against which Writ Appeals were filed. The Division Bench framed various issues for consideration. One of the issues framed was as to whether the Writ Petition was maintainable. The Division Bench held that the Writ Petition was maintainable. The matter was taken to the Apex Court and a contention was also raised before the Apex Court that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against a Co-operative Society - Apex Court reiterated that a Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society is maintainable if the action of the Co-operative Society is violative of statutory provisions. The Writ Petitions against Co-operative Societies are maintainable in certain circumstances. When the action complained in the Writ Petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Co-operative Society, a Writ Petition will lie. The action of the Co-operative Society, if falls in a public domain or breach of the public duty is complained of, writ may also lie. However, in the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a Writ Petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society. Applicability of decision in the case of Bhaskaran others v. Addl. Secretary others 1987 (11) TMI 401 - KERALA HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - The judgment of the Full Bench in Bhaskaran confines to only consideration of a Co-operative Society under Article 12. In regard to Co-operative Society which does not fall under Article 12, writ cannot be maintainable against the Co-operative Society on that basis. However, as we have already observed by considering issue No. (i), Writ Petition may be maintainable against Co-operative Society in the circumstances mentioned therein. The present Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.
2. Whether the Full Bench judgments of this Court in Bhaskaran and John lay down the correct law.
3. Whether, in the facts of the present case and on the basis of the pleadings made in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition was entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 against Co-operative Societies:
The primary issue was whether a Writ Petition can be filed against Co-operative Societies under Article 226. The judgment emphasized that a Writ Petition is maintainable if the action of the Co-operative Society is violative of statutory provisions or involves a public duty. The court noted that even though the Co-operative Societies are not "State" under Article 12, the High Court's power under Article 226 is extensive and can be exercised against any person or authority performing a public duty. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in V.R. Rudani, which held that mandamus could be issued against a body performing public duties, irrespective of whether it is a statutory authority.

2. Full Bench Judgments in Bhaskaran and John:
The court examined the Full Bench judgment in Bhaskaran, which held that Co-operative Societies are not "State" under Article 12 and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court agreed with this view but clarified that a Writ Petition could still be maintainable if the Co-operative Society's actions involve a public duty or statutory violation. The judgment in John was also discussed, which held that a Writ Petition could lie against a Co-operative Society if it performs public duties or violates statutory provisions. The court approved the judgment in John, reiterating that the nature of the duty performed by the Co-operative Society is crucial in determining the maintainability of the Writ Petition.

3. Entertainability of the Present Writ Petition:
The court found that the present Writ Petition did not allege any statutory violation or public duty breach by the Co-operative Society. The petitioners' claims were based on non-statutory staff regulations, which could not be the subject matter of a Writ Petition. The court also noted that there was no foundation in the Writ Petition to consider the Co-operative Society as an authority under Article 12. Consequently, the Writ Petition was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Writ Petitions against Co-operative Societies are maintainable in certain circumstances, specifically when there is a statutory violation or breach of public duty. The Full Bench judgments in Bhaskaran and John were approved to the extent that they align with this principle. The present Writ Petition was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria for maintainability under Article 226.