IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08 / 09 / 2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.A.NOS.1390 TO 1393 OF 2008 AND 111, 112, 253 AND 1228 OF 2009 W.A.NO.1390 OF 2008 The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. .. Appellant/1st Respondent versus 1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association Rep.by General Secretary Now at 13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 3.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Union No.4, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 4.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Officers Association (Regn.No.2101/MDS) Rep. by its General Secretary No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents/ Petitioner and Respondents 2 to 4 PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.27318 of 2004. Presented under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension to the retired employees who have retired from service on and from 30.6.2003 belonging to the petitioner Association whose names are given in the Annexure with arrears together with interest at 18%. For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-1 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.R.Arumugam For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Sivakumar For Respondent-4 : Mr.G.Nagarajan W.A.NO.1391 OF 2008 The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. .. Appellant/Respondent versus G.Selvarangan .. Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.4043 of 2005. Presented under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in C.No.11085/HRD/98-99 dated 28.10.2004 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to pay arrears of adhoc pension with interest at the rate of 12.25% from 1.3.1998 to 01.5.2002 to the petitioner. For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar W.A.NO.1392 OF 2008 The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. .. Appellant / 1st Respondent versus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association Rep.by General Secretary Now at 13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2.M.Sankara Subramanian 3.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 4.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 5.The Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by its Divisional Manager (P & GS) 102, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. . Respondents/ Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 4 PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.36632 of 2006. Presented under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension to the retired employees listed in Annexure I and II with arrears together with interest at 18%. For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondents-1 &2: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.Arumugam For Respondent-4 : Mr.Wilson Additional Advocate General For Respondent-5 : Mr.P.Saravanan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A.NO.1393 OF 2008 The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. .. Appellant/1st Respondent versus 1.J.J.Mohan 2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Superannuation Trust Fund No.4, Old No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 3.Secretary to Government Cooperation Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. . Respondents/Petitioner and Respondents 2 & 3 PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.46318 of 2006. Presented under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay pension to the petitioner with arrears together with interest at 18% per annum. For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.J.Jagadev For Respondent-3 : Mr.Wilson Additional Advocate General W.A.NO.111 OF 2009 The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association Rep.by General Secretary 13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Appellant /Petitioner versus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 3.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Union No.4, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 4.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Officers Association (Regn.No.2101/MDS) Rep. by its General Secretary No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.27318 of 2004, in so far in rejecting the claim for pension to the extent of 5% by granting at 20% instead of 25% to the retired employees of 1st respondent / TNSC Bank. For Appellant : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.Arumugam For Respondent-1 : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Sivakumar For Respondent -4 : Mr.G.Nagarajan W.A.NO.112 OF 2009 1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners Association Rep.by General Secretary 13/4, PSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.M.Sankarasubramanian .. Appellants /Petitioner versus 1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme Rep.by the General Manager (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 3.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Dept. Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 4.The Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by its Divisional Manager (P & GS) 102, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. .. Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.36632 of 2004, in so far in rejecting the claim for pension to the extent of 5% by granting at 20% instead of 25% to the retired employees of 1st respondent / TNSC Bank. For Appellant -1 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.Arumugam For Respondent-1 : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-3 : Mr.Wilson Additional Advocate General For Respondent-4 : Mr.P.Saravanan W.A.NO.253 OF 2009 G.Selvarangan .. Appellant /Petitioner versus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Officer Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.4043 of 2005. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan W.A.NO.1228 OF 2009 J.J.Mohan .. Appellant /Petitioner versus 1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer / Managing Director No.233, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Trustee The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Superannuation Trust Fund No.4 (Old No.233), N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 3.The Secretary to Government Co-operation Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. .. Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.46318 of 2006. For Appellant : Mr.S.J.Jagadev For Respondent-1 : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior counsel for Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent-3 : Mr.Wilson Additional Advocate General COMMON JUDGMENT D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. The common question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the learned single Judge is correct in directing the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank to pay 20% of last drawn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ salary as pension to its retired employees. 2.The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: (a) The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Limited (shortly "the Bank") is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The District Central Co- operative Banks are its Members. The Government of Tamil Nadu also owns substantial shares. There are no private individual members in the Co-operative Society. The Bank has been running profitably. (b) While so, a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short "the Act") was entered into between the Bank and the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Union (shortly "the Union") on 29.05.1991. Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme (in short "the Scheme") was introduced with effect from 01.01.1991 under Clause F.2 (c) of the settlement. Clause F.2 (c) of the memorandum of settlement reads as follows: "F.2 (c) Pension Scheme: It is mutually agreed that additional contribution at 2.5% of Basic Pay and D.A will be made to the Employees' Provident Fund by both the employees and employer with effect from 1.1.1991 for the purpose of Pension Scheme. Further, it is mutually agreed that a suitable Pension Scheme will be evolved after detailed discussions. It is also agreed that no loan facility against this additional 2.5% P.F. contributions will be sanctioned." (c) Though contributions were recovered from the employees pursuant to the settlement at the rate of 2.5% of Basic pay and D.A from 01.01.1991 and the Bank also paid matching contributions, the settlement was not implemented and pension was not paid. (d) Subsequently, another settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act on pension was entered into between the Bank and the Union on 24.10.1996. (e) The Bank also entered into a settlement with the Tamil Nadu State Apex Coop. Bank Officers' Association on 08.12.1996, in respect of pension on similar terms, as contained in the settlement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 24.10.1996. (f) Clause G-3 of the settlement dated 24.10.1996 provides for pension, which reads as follows: "G-3 STAFF CONTRIBUTORY PENSION SCHEME 1996: It is mutually agreed that the existing Contributory Superannuation Scheme will get modified to the extent necessary so as to extend pensionary benefits to the staff, effective from 1.1.1991, as provided for in the "Contributory Pension Scheme" and detailed in the Annexure enclosed to this Settlement." (g) The annexure to the settlement contains the details of the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Contributory Pension Scheme (shortly "the Pension Scheme"). (h)The Pension Scheme provides for contribution at the rate of 2.5% of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance from each month from the date of entry into the Bank up to 31.12.1990 and thereafter, from the employees and the matching contributions from the Bank. (i)As per the Scheme, Pension Corpus would be linked to LIC of India. (j) As per Clause 5 of the Scheme, the Bank agreed to contribute each year commencing from 01.01.1996 such sums that are required in keeping the Pension Corpus with sufficient resources to pay pension for all the eligible employees under the Scheme. (k) The Bank also framed Regulations, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Apex Coop. Bank Employees' Pension Scheme Regulations, 1996. Regulation 20(i) in Chapter – IV is relevant for this case and the same is extracted hereunder: "20. i) Basic Pension will be fifty percent of the average emoluments i.e. average of pay drawn by an employee during the last 10 months of his service as per Rugulation 20 (ii)." (l) The General Body of the Bank on 29.01.1997 approved the allocation of Rs.10 Crores to the Pension Corpus out of the profits earned during 1995-1996, in compliance with the settlement referred to above. The same was sent to the Registrar of Co- operative Societies for administrative approval. The allocation of Rs.10 Crores from and out of the profit of the Bank, without the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approval of the Government, was objected by the auditors and hence, pending approval of the Government, the same was kept as un- disbursed profit. Thus, the amount did not reach the Pension Corpus. (m) In those circumstances, the Bank was not able to pay pension as agreed to in the settlement. On the other hand, the Bank paid adhoc pension at the rate of 25% of last drawn wages, while the Scheme provides for 50% of the last drawn wages. That is, 50% of the pension was paid. That too, the adhoc pension was paid from 01.01.1997 only to those who retired after 01.01.1991, instead of from 01.01.1991, as per the settlement. (n)The LIC of India administered warning to the Bank for resorting to adhocism. The LIC of India advised that whenever employees retire from the service of the Bank, their contribution with accumulation of interest would be drawn from the fund and annuities would be purchased based on eligible pension and that any shortfall could be made good from the Corpus fund. Instead of doing the same, the Bank resorted to withdrawing amounts from the Corpus fund for payment of adhoc pension. (o)The Bank was forced to give adhoc pension only, since the Bank was not able to transfer the sum of Rs.10 Crores allocated to Pension Corpus fund as the Government was yet to approve the same. (p) Since the adhoc pension was paid to the retired employees from the contributions alone, the serving employees were apprehensive that the contributions made by them got eroded and there would be no amount to pay pension to them at the time of their retirement. In order to safeguard the interest of the serving members, the Bank kept aside a sum of Rs.13.88 Crores from and out of the total Pension Corpus fund of Rs.22.02 Crores available with LIC of India. (q)While 121 employees, who retired after 01.01.1991, were paid adhoc pension at the rate of 25% of last drawn wages from 01.01.1997, the employees retired after June 2003, were not paid even this adhoc pension. 3.The aforesaid facts led to the filing of writ petition in W.P.No.27318 of 2004 by the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners' Association for a direction to the Bank for payment of pension to 20 employees, who retired after June 2003, with interest at 18%. 4.While pension was sought for 20 persons who retired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after June 2003, even the adhoc pension paid to 121 employees was stopped from April 2005. 5.This led to the filing of another writ petition in W.P.No.36632 of 2006 by the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Pensioners' Association along with one of its Members, seeking direction to the Bank to pay pension to all the retired employees, as per the Scheme. 6.Some of the retirees also individually filed writ petitions and those writ petitions are W.P.No.4343 of 2005 and 46318 of 2006. 7.In those circumstances, an interim order was passed on 21.04.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.33227 of 2004 in W.P.No.27318 of 2004 directing the Bank to pay 15% of the due pension from April 2006 and the same was continued till the writ petition was disposed. 8.While the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.27318 of 2004 confined to 20 persons, the writ petition in W.P.No.36632 of 2006 relates to 159 retirees, as the pension was stopped to all the retirees after April 2005. An interim order was passed on 28.09.2006 in M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.36632 of 2006 directing the Bank to pay 15% of the pension due pending disposal of the writ petition. 9.It is an admitted fact that the appellant repeatedly wrote letters to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting him to seek approval of the Government for the transfer of Rs.10 Crores that was allocated in January 1997 itself to the Pension Corpus. But the same was not successful. 10.When all those writ petitions came up for final hearing during December 2006, after hearing the submissions made by all the parties, this Court appointed 15 Members Committee, inclusive of representative of the writ petitioner Association, the Bank, and other respondents and the Committee was directed to find out workable solution. 11.The Additional Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department was the convenor of the Committee, who held several meetings and submitted a report. While the employees/retirees demanded pension ranging from 25 to 35% of the last drawn salary in lieu of 50% as originally provided in the 12(3) settlement, the Bank agreed to pay only 17.5%. Since there was no consensus, the convenor of the Committee was constrained to file no consensus report. 12.Hence, the learned single Judge framed the following issue for consideration for disposal of those writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The point falling for consideration is that "What could be the quantum of the pension payable to the employees by the 1st Respondent Bank? and Whether it is 25% as demanded by the employees or at 17.5% as agreed by the 1st Respondent Bank Management." 13.The Bank also questioned the very maintainability of those writ petitions and the same was also considered. 14.The learned Judge disposed all the writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.27318 of 2004, 36632 of 2006, 4043 of 2005 and 46318 of 2006 by a common order dated 13.10.2008 with the following directions: "41.In the result, W.P.Nos.27318/2004 and 36632/2006 are partly allowed with the following directions:- ●First Respondent Bank shall pay 20% of last drawn salary as pension to the retired employees. ●Pension shall be paid to all the retired employees at the rate of 20% commencing from October 2008 (payable on 1st November 2008). ●Arrears shall be payable to all the retired employees in five monthly instalments. It is made clear that no interest is payable on the arrears of pension payable to the retired employees. ●First instalment of arrears of pension shall be payable from 01.12.2008. ●As stated in its letter dated 12.07.2007, first Respondent Bank shall transfer Rs.23.73 Crores to Pension Corpus Fund of the bank maintained with LIC in eight annual instalments. First instalment shall commence from the financial year 2008- 2009." 42.W.P.Nos.4043/2005 & 46318/2006:- In the line of the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. After orders was passed, submissions were made regarding 25% of pension already paid. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pension at the rate of 25% https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already paid may not be recovered nor be adjusted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon (2002) 3 SCC 302 (State of Karnataka and another v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Association and others). Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that since Court has passed the order directing payment of pension at the rate of 20%, necessarily excess of pension paid has to be recovered. In view of the decision (2002) 3 SCC 302 (State of Karnataka and another v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Association and others), 1st Respondent Bank may not recover nor adjust excess 5% which was already paid to the group of employees/retirees." 15.The crux of the directions is that the Bank was directed to pay 20% of last drawn salary as pension to the retired employees from October 2008 payable from 01.11.2008. The learned Judge negatived the contention as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, raised by the Bank. 16.Against the common order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the learned Judge in the batch of writ petitions, the Bank has preferred appeals in W.A.Nos.1390 to 1393 of 2008 against all the common orders passed in the batch of writ petitions and the Pensioners Association has preferred appeals in W.A.Nos.111 and 112 of 2009 against the order passed in W.P.Nos.27318 of 2004 and 36632 of 2006 respectively and W.A.No.1228 of 2009 is preferred against the order passed in W.P.No.46318 of 2006 and W.A.No.253 of 2009 is preferred against the order passed in in W.P.4043 of 2005. 17.We have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 18.The learned senior counsel for the appellant – Bank submitted as follows: a) The learned Judge erred in holding that writ petitions are maintainable against the appellant – Bank, while the appellant – Bank is a Co-operative Society, registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. It is not State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable against the appellant - Bank. In this regard, the senior counsel relies on the larger Bench judgment of this Court in K.MARAPPAN VS. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689. b) The retirees seek to enforce the 12(3) settlement by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is not permissible as their remedy lies elsewhere. In this regard, he relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in MADRAS LABOUR UNION VS. BINNY LTD., reported in 1995 (1) LLJ 588. The learned senior counsel further submitted that though the learned Judge has agreed with the proposition laid down in the said judgment, the learned Judge erred in entertaining those writ petitions. c) The learned Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petitions, when the retirees have effective alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and when remedies are available under the Industrial Disputes Act, the retirees ought not to have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. KRISHNA KANT AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 5 SCC 75 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in INDIAN ADDITIVES EMPLOYEES' UNION VS. INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD., reported in 2005 (1) CTC 1. d) The learned Judge should not have fixed the quantum of compensation, as it involves disputed questions of facts. 19.The learned Additional Advocate General representing the Government also submitted that the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the larger Bench judgment of this Court in K.Marappan's case (cited supra). 20.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Pensioners Association and the retirees, seek to sustain the order of the learned Judge and their grievance is that the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge ought to have fixed the quantum of compensation at 50% of the due pension payable under the Act. The learned Judge ought to have fixed the quantum of compensation at the rate of 25% of last drawn wages, instead at 20%. 21.I have considered the submissions made on either side. From the submissions made on either side, the following two issues are arises for consideration in these appeals: (i) Whether the writ petitions relating to payment of pension are maintainable. (ii) Whether the learned Judge was correct in fixing the quantum of compensation at the rate of 20% of the last drawn wages, when the fixation of pension involves disputed questions of fact. 22.There is no dispute that the appellant bank is a Co- operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and not State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The larger Bench of this Court has held in K.Marappan's case (cited supra) that normally writ petition is not maintainable against Co- operative Societies. The following are the proposition laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in K.Marappan's case (cited supra): "21.From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: (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