IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3110 of 2004 Vidya Bhushan Singh Abhai, son of Sri Indradeo Singh, resident of village-Pitaunjiya, P.S.-Rahui, District-Nalanda, at present posted as the Chief Executive, Kaimur Dairy at Mohania, P.S.- Mohania, District-Kaimur ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Federation Ltd., Dairy Development Complex, P.O. Bihar Veterinary College, Patna-800 014, through its Chairman-cum-Secretary. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Federation Ltd., Dairy Development Complex, P.O.-Bihar Veterinary College, Patna-800 014. 3. The Chief Manager, Administration, Bihar State Co-Operative Milk Producer’s Federation Ltd. Dairy Development Complex, P.O. Bihar Veterinary College, Patna-800 014. 4. The Deputy Manager, Accounts, Bihar State Co-Operative Milk Producer’s Federation Ltd., Dairy Development Complex, P.O.-Bihar Veterinary College, Patna-800 014. 5. The Deputy Manger, Audit, Bihar State Co-Operative Milk Producer’s Federation, Dairy Development Complex, P.O.- Bihar Veterinary College, Patna-800 014. 6. The Manger, Gaya Dairy, Katari Hill Road, Gaya. 7. The Chief Executive Officer, Gaya Dairy, Katari Hill Road, Gaya. 8. The Plant In-Charge, Gaya Dairy, Katari Hill Road, Gaya. ……… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate Mr. Bipin Bihari Pd., Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents:- Mr. P.K. Shashi, Sr. Advocate, (A.G.) Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate. ..……. 04/ 08-09-2009 Heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate for the respondents. This petition has been filed against a Co-operative Society. Even the learned Single Judge under the order of reference has raised question regarding the legality of a decision of a single Judge of this Court, we are not feel inclined to deal with that question. Now, law is well settled 2 that writ is not maintainable against a Co-Operative Society unless such Co-Operative Society is considered as an “authority” within the meaning of Article 226 or within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In such view of the matter, the writ itself is not maintainable. Since we hold that writ petition is not maintainable, it is obvious that it would be open to the petitioner to pursue any remedy available under law. It goes without saying that since the matter had remained pending in the High Court, if there is any question of limitation, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. S.Sb/- (P.K. Misra, C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)