Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11003, 16466,12088,11510 of 1993, 1 956 and 560 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision:- 15.07.2011 (1) Civil Writ Petition No. 11003 of 1993 Tek Chand ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents (2) Civil Writ Petition No. 956 of 1994 Mrs. Pardeep Kaur and others ....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents (3) Civil Writ Petition No. 560 of 1994 Joginder Pal ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents (4) Civil Writ Petition No. 16466 of 1993 Kulwinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents (5) Civil Writ Petition No. 12088 of 1993 Shri Jatinder Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11003, 16466,12088,11510 of 1993, 2 956 and 560 of 1994 (6) Civil Writ Petition No. 11510 of 1993 Vipin Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Garg, Advocate, for Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP Nos.11003, 11510 &16466 of 1993 and 560 of 1994) Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.956 of 1994). Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.12088 of 1993) Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Co-operative Bank. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11003, 16466,12088,11510 of 1993, 956 and 560 of 1994, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For reference, facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No.11003 of 1993. The petitioner(s) have invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the appointments made in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P-7) to the post of Junior Clerks. Further direction has been sought to appoint the petitioner(s) as Junior Clerks being fully eligible. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11003, 16466,12088,11510 of 1993, 3 956 and 560 of 1994 Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has raised a preliminary objection that no writ is maintainable against respondent No.3, which is the main contesting respondent in this case. He has cited many judgments in this regard. In a recent judgment delivered in case General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and others, JT 2003 (8) SC 235, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of jurisdiction of the High court to entertain the writ petition against a co-operative Society or a co-operative bank observed as under:- “Para 8....Before this Court, it was stated on behalf of the contesting respondents in the counter affidavit that the Government of Uttar Pradesh held 50% shares in the mill which was not denied on behalf of the mill. Therefore, even if it is taken to be admitted due to non traverse, the share of the State Government would be only 50% and not entire. Thus, the first test laid down is not fulfilled by the mill. It has been stated on behalf of the contesting respondents that the mill used to receive some financial assistance from the Government. According to the mill, the Government had advanced some loans to the mill. It has no where been stated that the State used to meet any expenditure of the mill much less almost the entire one, but, as a matter of fact, it operates on the basis of self generated finances. There is nothing to show that the mill enjoys monopoly status in the matter of production of sugar. A perusal of bye-laws of the mill would show that its membership is open to cane growers other societies, gram sabha, State Government, etc., and under bye-law 52, committee of management consisting of 15 members is constituted out of whom, 6 members are required to be elected by the representatives of individual members, 3 out of co-operative society and other institutions and 2 representatives of financial institutions besides 5 members who are required to be nominated by the State Government which shall be Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11003, 16466,12088,11510 of 1993, 4 956 and 560 of 1994 inclusive of the chairman and administrator. Thus, the ratio of the nominees of State Government in the committee is only 1/3rd and the management of the committee is dominated by 2/3rd non-government members. Under the bye-laws, the State Government can neither issue any direction to the mill nor determine its policy as it is an autonomous body. The State has no control at all in the functioning of the mill much less deep and pervasive one. The role of the federation, which is the apex body and whose ex-officio chairman-cum-managing director is secretary, department of sugar industry and cane, Government of Uttal Pradesh, is only advisory and to guide its members. The letter sent by managing director of the federation on 22nd November, 1999 was merely by way of an advice and was in the nature of a suggestion to the mill in view of its deteriorating financial condition. From the said letter, which is in the advisory capacity, it cannot be inferred that the State had any deep and pervasive control over the mill. Thus, we find none of the indicia exists in the case of mill, as such the same being neither instrumentality nor agency of government cannot be said to be an authority and therefore, it is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.” In the instant case also, the Hoshiarpur Central Co- operative Bank Limited, Hoshiarpur, is not financed by the Government. However, it has been stated that the Government has 9% share and it is run by Board of Directors and is an autonomous body. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Satrughan Nishad's case (supra) further observed as under:- “Para 9......In the present case, the mill is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar which, on the same analogy, would not involve any public function. Thus, we have no difficulty in holding that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution could not have been invoked.” The Division Bench of our own High Court in case Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11003, 16466,12088,11510 of 1993, 5 956 and 560 of 1994 Jatinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 4795 of 2003 (decided on 02.05.2002), while following the judgments of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. (supra) and U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others, 1999(1) RSJ 266, which dealt with the similar issue, held that the writ petition was not maintainable against respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, it is held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petitions. Consequently, the same are hereby dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 15th of July, 2011 JUDGE ajp