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

The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (Respondent No.2, "Society"). A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him purporting to be in terms of Rule 56(b) of the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1980 (for short the "Rules") read with Section 35-B(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (for short the "Act"). He was found guilty therein. The Managing Director of the Society, by an order dated 18.11.1993, terminated his services purported to be in exercise of his power under Rule 2(p) of Appendix 1(a) of the Rules. In the meantime, an Administrator was appointed by the State to manage its affairs. The appellant herein preferred an appeal against the said order terminating his services before the Administrator on or about 2.12.1993. However, the Administrator had no occasion to deal with the said appeal. By an order dated 18.11.1995, the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.2 dismissed the said appeal. He reached the age of superannuation on 30th September, 19962. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, inter alia, praying for quashing of the order of termination dated 18.11.1995, as also the order of the appellate authority dated 16.1.1996. He further prayed for grant of all consequential benefits pursuant to or in furtherance of the quashing of the said order of punishment3. The writ petition filed by the appellant was based on the premise that the 1st respondent is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 6.6.2003, dismissed the said writ petition holding that the writ petition was not maintainable. The appellant is, thus, before us.

Court's reasoning:
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.