Case: S.S. Rana Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Socieites

Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722] : "(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character. (3) It may also be relevant factor ..whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." 13. This Court further held: "This picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesis, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State." (Emphasis supplied) 14. As the respondent No.1 does not satisfy any of the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), we are of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at a finding that the respondent-Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 15. We are, however, not oblivious of a three judge Bench decision in Gayatri De vs. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 90] , wherein this Court held a writ petition to be maintainable against the cooperative society only stating: "We have, in paragraphs supra, considered the judgments for and against on the question of maintainability of writ petition. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. Those cases are not cases covered by the appointment of a Special Officer to manage the administration of the Society and its affairs. In the instant case, the Special Officer was appointed by the High Court to discharge the functions of the Society, therefore, he should be regarded as a public authority and hence, the writ petition is maintainable." 16. The said decision, therefore, is of no assistance to us. 17. Our attention has also been drawn to U.P. State Cooperative Land development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 741] , wherein the writ petition was held to be maintainable principally on the ground that it had been created under an Act. Reliance has also been placed upon Ram Sahan Rai vs. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak & Anr. [(2001) 3 SCC 323] , wherein again the appellant thus was recruited in a Society constituted under the U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964 and this Court, having examined different provisions of rules, bye-laws and regulations, was of the firm opinion that the State Government exercised all-pervasive control over the Bank and moreover its employees were governed by statutory rules, prescribing an entire gamut of procedure of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by framing a set of charges culminating in inflicting of appropriate punishment, after complying with the requirements of giving a show-cause and an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. 18. It is, therefore, evident that in Ram Sahan Rai (supra) also the cooperative society was held to be established under a statute. We may notice that in Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Narayan Rath & Anr. [(1977) 3 SCC 576] , this Court was of the opinion that: "The High Court has dealt with the question whether a writ petition can be maintained against a cooperative society, but we are inclined to the view that the observations made by the High Court and its decision that such a writ petition is maintainable are not strictly in accordance with the decisions of this Court. We would have liked to go into the question for ourselves, but it is unnecessary to do so as Respondent 1 by his writ petition, was asking for relief not really against a cooperative society but in regard to the order which was passed by the Registrar, who was acting as a statutory authority in the purported exercise of powers conferred on him by the Cooperative Societies Act. The writ petition was in that view maintainable." 19. We may notice in some decisions, some High Courts have held wherein that a writ petition would be maintainable against a society if it is demonstrated that any mandatory provision of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, have been violated by it. [See Bholanath Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (1996) Vol.1 Calcutta Law Journal 502 .] 20. The Society has not been created under any statute. It has not been shown before that in terminating the services of the appellant, the Respondent has violated any mandatory provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. In fact, in the writ petition no such case was made out. 21.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]As the respondent No.1 does not satisfy any of the tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), we are of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at a finding that the respondent-Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of IndiaWe are, however, not oblivious of a three judge Bench decision in Gayatri De vs. MousumiCooperativeHousing Society Ltd. & Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 90] , wherein this Court held a writ petition to be maintainable against the cooperative society only stating:"We have, in paragraphs supra, considered the judgments for and against on the question of maintainability of writ petition. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. Those cases are not cases covered by the appointment of a Special Officer to manage the administration of the Society and its affairs. In the instant case, the Special Officer was appointed by the High Court to discharge the functions of the Society, therefore, he should be regarded as a public authority and hence, the writ petition is maintainable."The said decision, therefore, is of no assistance to usOur attention has also been drawn to U.P. StateCooperativeLand development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 741] , wherein the writ petition was held to be maintainable principally on the ground that it had been created under an Act. Reliance has also been placed upon Ram Sahan Rai vs. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak & Anr. [(2001) 3 SCC 323] , wherein again the appellant thus was recruited in a Society constituted under the U.P.CooperativeLand Development Bank Act, 1964 and this Court, having examined different provisions of rules, bye-laws and regulations, was of the firm opinion that the State Government exercised all-pervasive control over the Bank and moreover its employees were governed by statutory rules, prescribing an entire gamut of procedure of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by framing a set of charges culminating in inflicting of appropriate punishment, after complying with the requirements of giving a show-cause and an opportunity of hearing to the delinquentIt is, therefore, evident that in Ram Sahan Rai (supra) also the cooperative society was held to be established under a statute. We may notice that in NayagarhCooperativeCentral Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Narayan Rath & Anr. [(1977) 3 SCC 576] , this Court was of the opinion that:"The High Court has dealt with the question whether a writ petition can be maintained against a cooperative society, but we are inclined to the view that the observations made by the High Court and its decision that such a writ petition is maintainable are not strictly in accordance with the decisions of this Court. We would have liked to go into the question for ourselves, but it is unnecessary to do so as Respondent 1 by his writ petition, was asking for relief not really against a cooperative society but in regard to the order which was passed by the Registrar, who was acting as a statutory authority in the purported exercise of powers conferred on him by theCooperativeSocieties Act. The writ petition was in that view maintainable."We may notice in some decisions, some High Courts have held wherein that a writ petition would be maintainable against a society if it is demonstrated that any mandatory provision of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, have been violated by it. [See Bholanath Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (1996) Vol.1 Calcutta Law Journal 502 .]The Society has not been created under any statute. It has not been shown before that in terminating the services of the appellant, the Respondent has violated any mandatory provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. In fact, in the writ petition no such case was made out.