THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs.1807,14304,16135,16138 AND 18520 OF 2010 AND 5069 AND 16019 OF 2011 AND CONTEMPT CASE NOs.1218 AND 1219 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the letter of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.71787/98 UB.II, Dated 23-03-1999 as illegal and invalid in terms of Section 9 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’) (presently Section 11 of the Central Act 39/2002), to declare the notice of retirement in memorandum No.CCS/14/Retirement/ 2010 and 2011 proposing to retire the petitioners on attaining the age of 58 years as illegal and contrary to Rule 7 of the Employees (General Service Conditions) Rules of the 1st respondent society and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners till they attain the age of 60 years. 2. The Contempt Cases are filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the 1st respondent for willfully and deliberately failure to implement the directions of this Court, dated 09-07-2010 in WPMP Nos.20316 and 20319 of 2010 in W.P.Nos.16135 and 16138 of 2010 respectively. 3. Heard the counsel appearing for both parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions contended that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 23-03-1999 inasmuch it is only the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority under the Act to take a decision with regard to approval or disapproval of the amended bye-laws of the society, that no such approval has been given by the 2nd respondent approving the bye-laws as amended by the Board of the 1st respondent society reducing the age of retirement of the employees from 60 to 58 and therefore, he prays to allow the writ petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the fact that this Court has already taken a view that the 1st respondent society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The Board of Governors of the 1st respondent society passed a resolution, dated 09-10-1998 reducing the age of retirement of the employees from 60 to 58 duly amending the bye-laws of the society. The impugned order, dated 23-03-1999 passed by the 1st respondent reads thus: “I invite your attention to the reference cited and it is to inform that there is no deeming provision in the Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, for the amendment of the service conditions. However, the amended proposed is approved for adoption by the society subject to out-come of the Court-case.” It is not in dispute before this Court or even by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the 3rd respondent is not a ‘State’ and local or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If that is the case, the power of approval of the proposed amendment by 1st respondent must be traceable to a statutory provision. No doubt, the 1st respondent society has been originally registered under the Co- operative Societies Act, 1912 in the year 1923. But by virtue of the enactment of Multi State Co-operative Societies by the Central Government in the year 1984, by law it deemed to have been registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Central Act). Therefore, the question is whether the 1st respondent has got jurisdiction to approve the bye- laws or 3rd respondent has got power to approve the bye-laws or the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to give approval on any proposed amendment to the bye-laws of the society or rules relating to the service conditions. To the above controversy, the answer is Section 9 of the Central Act, which reads thus: “1.No amendment of any bye-laws of a Multi-State Co-operative Society shall be valid, unless such amendment has been registered under this Act. 2.Every proposal for such amendment shall be forwarded to the Central Registrar and if the Central Registrar is satisfied that the proposed amendment- a) is not contrary to the provisions of this Act or of the Rules; b) does not conflict with co-operative principles; and c) will promote the economic interests of the members of the Multi-State Co-operative Society, he may register the amendment within a period of six months from the date of receipt thereof by him.” As on the date of passing of the resolution by the 1st respondent society with regard to amendment of bye-laws reducing the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years, section 9 of the Central Act as it stood un-amended, was the law governing at that time. The above provision makes it clear that the amendment of bye-laws shall be valid and effective unless if it is registered by the Central Registrar after satisfying himself that it is not contrary to the Act or Rules. Such a procedure has not been followed by the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the proposed amendment of bye-laws as passed by the 1st respondent society has not been registered with the Central Registrar. Unless the amendment of bye-laws is registered with the Central Registrar, the same shall not be given effect to and it can be said to be invalid. When the procedure contemplated under the Act has not been followed, then certainly the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings is without jurisdiction. The Central Registrar is the competent authority to register the bye- laws after his subjective satisfaction of bye-laws but not contrary to the Act or Rules. Therefore, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings and hence, the same are liable to be set aside. 7. With regard to grant of consequential relief, learned counsel for the 1st respondent stated that the 1st respondent is not ‘State’ or local or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.3130 of 2001, dated 23-07-2002, wherein it was held thus: “In view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in SUM PRASAD V A.P. STGATE FEDERATION OF CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LIMITED 2002 (6) ALT 323 (FB), wherein it was held that there cannot be any writ against private society, this writ petition is dismissed.” 8. This Court in unreported judgment, dated 21-06-2005, in W.P.No.30110 of 1998, held thus: “Since the 2nd respondent society was registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act or deemingly under the Multi State Co- operative Societies Act, it is not a ‘State’ within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India” The same society is the party to the earlier two writ petitions. Therefore, when this Court has already taken a decision that the 1st respondent society is not a ‘State’ or local or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with regard to grant of consequential relief. 9. The words ‘any person or authority’ used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not to be confined only to statutory authority and authorities and instrumentalities of State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duties. The nature of the duty imposed on the body is relevant. A private body is allowed to discharge the public duties or positive obligation or public nature. The entire allegations in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions do not disclose that the 1st respondent society is performing public duties or positive obligation of public in nature. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners and 1st respondent under law. The interim stay granted by this Court earlier is vacated in view of the fact that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue writ or direction to private society. No costs. 11. In view of the fact that orders have been passed in the main writ petitions, no separate orders need be passed in the Contempt Cases. Hence, the Contempt Cases are closed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 04-07-2011 Note: Issue CC in 3 days Hsd