1. In this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No. CESS G.M.D No. 1529 of 1975–76, dated 10 and 11 September, 1975, of the General Manager, Co-operative Electricity Supply Society, Ltd., Sircilla, removing him from service.
2. Various contentions have been raised in the writ petition challenging the impugned order. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri P.A Chowdary, the learned counsel for the respondent contending that the respondent is a private society and, therefore, a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution does not lie. Sri H.S Gururaja Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is a co-operative society a statutory and public body and, therefore, a writ lies but this question is no longer res integra so far as this case is concerned.
3. In Mirmuzam Ali Khan v. Managing Director Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank, Barkatpura, Hyderabad [Writ Petition No. 887 of 1972, dated 14 March, 1973], Obul Reddi, J. (as be then was), held that he had held in a number of petitions that Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would not be called in aid by those serving in statutory corporations or companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, or societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, and that the petitioner therein, who was an employee of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, Ltd., a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, cannot maintain the writ petition against the society under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In Anjaneyulu Raju (N.) v. Land Mortgage Bank, Narsapur, West Godavari [Writ Petition No. 296 of 1975] the petitioner, an employee of Land Mortgage Bank, Narsapur, which was a Primary Bank, sought to challenge the order, reverting him from the post of assistant manager to the post of supervisor Kondaiah, J., following the decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [1975 — I L.L.N 366] and Sabhajit Tewari v. Union of India [1975 — I L.L.N 362], held that no writ could be issued against a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. On appeal in Writ Appeal No. 474 of 1975, this decision was confirmed by Sambasiva Rao, J. and Madhusudana Rao, J., by their judgment, dated 18 October, 1976. Their Lordships observed at page 8 of the judgment as follows:
“It must, however, be noticed that the petitioner is not an employee of respondent 2. He is an employee in respondents 1 bank which is without doubt a private body.”
4. Again at page 10 the learned Judges observed as follows:
“Even if it is construed as an order in violation of bye-law (8) it cannot be said that respondent 2 violated any statutory rule or rules having the force or even the flavour of law. The bye-law is that respondent 1 Land Mortgage Bank, Narsapur, has been formed under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. In Co-operative Bank v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad [(1969) 2 SCC 43 : A.I.R 1970 S.C 245], the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that the bye-laws of a co-operative society cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. Non-observation of bye-law (8) by respondent 1 bank cannot be considered to be violation of any statutory obligation. In this view of the matter the order of our learned brother dismissing the appellant's petition does not call for any interference.”
5. This decision, therefore, clearly supports the contention of Sri P.A Chowdary that respondent 2 is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act which is a private body and, therefore, no writ lies against the respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
6. Sri H.S Gururaja Rao, relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sambasiva Rao, J. and Madhusudana Rao J., in Osmania College, Kurnool v. D.V Subba Sastry [1976 A.L.T 195]. But in that case the learned Judges held that the Osmania College is a public body which discharges public duties and, therefore, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Their Lordships followed the decision of the Full Bench in Harijander Singh v. Kakatiya Medical College [A.I.R 1975 A.P 35]. But that decision has no application to the facts of this case because here the co-operative society incorporated under the Co-operative Societies Act, is a private body and not a public body discharging public duties. The decision of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No. 474 of 1973, dated 18 October, 1976, of Sambasiva Rao, J. and Madhusudana Rao, J., is binding on me. Following the aforesaid judgment I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent-society and it is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
Comments