9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ will lie against a co-operative society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether a co-operative society can be considered an instrumentality of the 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. 3. Applicability of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in determining whether a co-operative society is an instrumentality of the State. 4. The enforceability of service conditions governed by the bye-laws of a co-operative society through a writ petition. 5. The relevance of alternative remedies provided under the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether a writ will lie against a co-operative society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The five-Judge Bench in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society held that no writ will lie against a co-operative society as it is not an instrumentality of the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. However, the Division Bench referred this question to a Larger Bench, which concluded that the matter should be placed before a Bench of a larger quorum. The current five-Judge Bench reiterated that no writ petition is maintainable against a co-operative society unless special circumstances are shown. Issue 2: Whether a co-operative society can be considered an instrumentality of the 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Bench examined whether a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is a private body or falls within the definition of the 'State' or 'local' or 'other authorities' under the control of the Government. The court applied the tests laid down in Ajay Hasia's case, which were approved in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case, to determine if the society is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Issue 3: Applicability of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in determining whether a co-operative society is an instrumentality of the State. The Bench applied the six tests from Ajay Hasia's case: - Test 2: No substantial financial assistance from the State. - Test 3: No monopoly status conferred or protected by the State. - Test 6: The society's business was not previously carried on by a government department. - Test 1, 4, & 5: The court found that the Government's shareholding is negligible, the control is regulatory rather than deep and pervasive, and the society's functions are not closely related to governmental functions. Therefore, the respondent society does not satisfy these tests and cannot be characterized as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. Issue 4: The enforceability of service conditions governed by the bye-laws of a co-operative society through a writ petition. The Bench held that the bye-laws of a co-operative society do not have the force of law. Therefore, service conditions governed by these bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition unless the society can be characterized as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. Issue 5: The relevance of alternative remedies provided under the Act. The Bench emphasized that the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 when the Act provides for an alternative remedy unless special circumstances are shown. The discretionary power of the Court under Article 226 remains intact, but it should not be substituted for the efficacious remedy provided by the statute. Conclusion: 1. No Writ Against Co-operative Society: The five-Judge Bench reaffirmed that no writ petition is maintainable against a co-operative society unless special circumstances are shown. 2. Not an Instrumentality of the State: The respondent society does not qualify as an instrumentality or agency of the State under the tests laid down in Ajay Hasia's case. 3. Bye-laws Not Enforceable: The service conditions governed by the bye-laws of a co-operative society cannot be enforced through a writ petition. 4. Alternative Remedy: The Court will not exercise power under Article 226 when an alternative remedy is available under the Act. The reference was answered accordingly, and the registry was directed to place the paper before the appropriate bench for disposal.
|
