Letters Patent Appeal No.181 OF 2002 Against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2001 passed in CWJC no.10529 of 2001 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------------------------------------(Appellant) Versus AKHILESH KUMAR--------------------------------------------------(Respondents) For the appellants: Mr Sanjay Prakash Verma For the respondent: None P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.N. SINGH Barin Ghosh & J.N.Singh, JJ Notice of the limitation application has been refused by the sole respondent. It has been contended in the application that there was no willful delay or laches on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal. Since those averments are not being disputed, we feel that sufficient cause has been made out for delay of approximately 30 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we allow the said application and condone the delay. In the writ petition the writ petitioner-respondent challenged the order dated 5th July,2001 whereby prayer made to regularize the services of the writ petitioner- respondent was rejected. In the writ petition, it was stated that the writ petitioner-respondent was working under, on being appointed by, a State Government servant and his services had been brought to an end by the order dated 5th - 2 - July,2001 by an officer of the Government, in order to victimize him. It was contended that the said order dated 5th July,2001 was the follow up action of the show cause pertaining to the alleged refusal on the part of respondent to type a letter on 18th June,2001,where it was also alleged that he acted disgracefully on 19th June,2001. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State the State contended that the respondent was an employee of a registered society and not of the State and accordingly, the writ petition was not maintainable. In the judgment and order under appeal the learned Judge has recorded that though the Society is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act,1960, but all the officers of the Society are officers of the State and the society operates with the funds provided by the State Government and the Central Government. The learned Single Judge concluded that in such situation the writ petition has to be allowed. It may be possible that having regard to the structure of the society, it is such an authority which should be deemed to be a State within the meaning of Article l2 of - 3 - the Constitution and accordingly a writ petition is maintainable against it. However, when a writ petition is maintainable against such a society, the same should be against such society and not against the State. In the writ petition the society was not made a party. Even after counter affidavit was filed by the State, no attempt was made to implead the society as a party to the writ petition. In the circumstances, in absence of the society a writ of certiorari can not be issued quashing an order passed on behalf of the society and accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal. (Barin Ghosh,J) (J. N.Singh, J ) The Patna High court The 17th July,2008 Shahid/NAFR