Joginder Singh vs Registrar,Cooperative Societies Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the letter dated 15.2.1996 whereby he was relieved from the post of Manager and direction was also sought to the respondents to produce the order dated 14.2.1996 whereby services of the petitioner had been terminated.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent-society as Manager on 24.7.1993 on 89 days basis. Services of the petitioner were regularized by the Board of Directors vide Annexure P-2 dated 28.9.1993. Inderbir Singh challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing CWP No. 12778 of 1995. On 15.2.1996, petitioner was relieved from the post of Manager. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

During the course of arguments, it has transpired that CWP No. 12778 of 1995, filed by Inderbir Singh, challenging the appointment of the petitioner, was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 22.3.2013 as during the pendency of the petition, services of Joginder Singh, present petitioner, were terminated.

Learned counsel for the society-respondent No. 4 has submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed as the same was not maintainable. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and Others, wherein it was held as under:-

From the decisions referred to above, it would be clear that the form in which the body is constituted, namely, whether it is a society or cooperative society or a company, is not decisive. The real status of the body with respect to the control of government would have to be looked into. The various tests, as indicated above, would have to be applied and considered cumulatively. There can be no hard and fast formula and in different facts/situations, different factors may be found to be overwhelming and indicating that the body is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. In this context, Bye Laws of the Mill would have to be seen. In the instant case, in one of the writ applications filed before the High Court, it was asserted that the Government of Uttar Pradesh held 50% shares in the Mill which fact was denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and it was averred that majority of the shares were held by cane growers. Of course, it was not said that the Government of Uttar Pradesh did not hold any share. 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, a committee of management consisting of 15 members is constituted, out of whom, 5 members are required to be elected by the representatives of individual members, 3 out of cooperative 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 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 nongovernment 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 Uttar 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 present case, petitioner has challenged the termination of his services by the respondent-society. In view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-society, this petition is not maintainable.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.