S. Itrat Hussain vs Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna and Others

Radha Mohan Pd., J.—This writ petition is directed against the letter dated 1.1.2001, contained in An-nexure 5, issued by the Acting General Manager of the Bihar Awami Co-operative Bank Ltd. terminating the service of the petitioner. The writ petition was heard on the question of maintainability on 26.2.2001 and the order was reserved.

The Bihar Awami Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a Co-operative Society registered under the Bihar & Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and is completely privately owned and managed by its Board of Directors. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the respondent Bank may be a private body registered under the Co operative Societies Act but is discharging the public duty and as such it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court of the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others, and in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others, It has also been submitted by him that under rule 33 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, the appointment of a paid employee in any registered society are to be subject to such conditions as to qualifications, designation, scale of pay and traveling allowances, furnishing of security, compulsory contribution to provident fund, grant of leave salary, increment, transfer, punishment, suspension, removal or dismissal as may, from time to time, be determined by the Registrar by genera) or special order. He also submitted that the respondent Bank is also controlled by the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and as such, the Registrar has overall control over the Bank which makes it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This Court is unable to appreciate as to how the provisions of the R.B.I. Act or rule 33 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules will at all make the respondent Bank, which is purely managed and controlled by a private body, namely, its Board of Directors, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. Under rule 33 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has been vested with the power to issue general or special order in respect of the appointment of a paid employee in any registered society, but he cannot issue order to the Managing Committee to terminate the service of the employee of the respondent Co-operative Bank. It is only the Chief Executive Officer/General Manager competent to take disciplinary action against the Bank''s staff in accordance with the Service Rules and Standing Orders of the Board, who will be subject to the general control, supervision and direction of the Board of Directors under its bye-laws.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harendra Narain Banker vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1985 PLJR 1078, held that no writ can be issued on the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society which shall be deemed to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

In the case of Nand Kishore Rai vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1988 PLJR 1065, this Court while distinguishing the judgment in the case of Harendra Narain Banker vs. State of Bihar (supra) has held that as the impugned order had been passed by a Special Officer appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, after the supersession of the Co-operative Society, there is no necessity of considering that aspect of the matter in detail. According to the Division Bench, the principle laid down in the case of Harendra Narain Banker shall not be applicable when the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society has been superseded and a Special Officer has been appointed by the Registrar to manage the affairs of the Society. Under such circumstances, the Special Officer has to be held to be an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution which shall be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust vs. V.R. Rudani (supra) was dealing with a case of the institution which had permanent affiliation under the Gujarat University Act, 1949 and the University Teachers and those employed in the affiliated colleges were paid in the pay scale recommended by the University Grants Commission but despite decision taken by the University to grant revised pay scales to teachers in affiliated colleges which was binding on the management as the service conditions of the academic staff were not purely of a private character and also had superadded protection by the University decisions creating a legal right-duty, relationship between the staff and the management, the Apex Court has held that the mandamus cannot be refused to the teachers of the College, who were not given the benefit of the said scale.

In the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others, the Apex Court has held that the U.P. Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., though functioning as Society under the Societies Act, is constituted under the Bank Act of 1964 and the provisions of the Bank Act of 1964 and Societies Act, 1965 shows that the affairs of the Society was controlled by the State Government. Under such circumstances, the said Bank was held to be an instrumentality of the State and that the employees have statutory protection which made it amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the petitioner has any protection of statutory body to assail the legality of the impugned order, or that the State Government or any statutory body has any control over the affairs of the Society. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the said two decisions of the Apex Court are of no avail to the petitioner for maintaining this writ petition against the order of his termination. The writ petition is thus held to be not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.