Writ petition filed by banking assistants challenging their exclusion from a promotional written test. The Court held the Cooperative Bank is not an 'authority' under Article 12, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
1. Susanta Kumar Panda Aged about 50 Years Son of Late Janardan Panda Junagarh Branch.
2. Iswari Prasad Patjoshi Aged about 58 Years Son of Dambarudhara Patjoshi Dharmagarh Branch.
3. Sanurjya Meher Aged about 50 Years Son of Late Krushna Chandra Meher Lanjigarh Branch.
4. Chakradhara Dash Aged about 56 Years Son of Late Udayanath Dash Sadar Branch.
5. Sudhakara Mishra Aged about 56 Years Son of Late Basudev Mishra Junagarh Branch.
6. Bibhisan Meher Aged about 55 Years Son of Joy Shankar Meher Junagarh Branch.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 1 of 40
7. Ram Krushna Meher Aged about 51 Years Son of Kamal Lochan Meher Kalampur Branch.
8. Kambupani Kabir Aged about 57 Years Son of Shika Charan Kabir Dharmagarh Branch.
9. Indramani Ch. Majhi Aged about 54 Years Son of Kamadev Ch. Majhi Koksara Branch.
10. Dibas Kumar Pradhani Aged about 54 Years Son of Dhabaleswar Pradhani Koksara Branch.
11. Rajendra Kharsel Aged about 55 Years Son of Ganeshram Kharsel Golmunda Branch.
12. Budhiman Patra Aged about 54 Years Son of Mahendra Patra Junagarh Branch.
All the petitioners are now working as Banking Assistants under Bhawanipatna Central Co-Operative Bank, At/P.O.: Bhawanipatna District: Kalahandi. …
Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
1. Chief Executive Officer Bhawanipatna Central Co-Operative Bank,
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 2 of 40
At/P.O.: Bhawanipatna District: Kalahandi.
2. Principal Agricultural Co-Operative Staff Training Institute Odisha State Co-Operative Bank At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.
3. Bhabagrahi Bishi Aged about 59 Years presently working as Assistant Supervisor in Sadar Branch Kalahandi.
4. Suchitra Routray Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Sadar Branch Kalahandi.
5. Hrusikesh Mishra Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Evening Branch At/P.O./District: Kalahandi.
6. Prahallad Mund Aged about 57 Years presently working as Assistant Supervisor in Dharmagarh Branch At/P.O.: Dharmagarh, District: Kalahandi.
7. Anjan Kumar Meher Aged about 55 Years working as Junior Assistant in Dharmagarh Branch At/P.O.: Dharmagarh, District: Kalahandi.
8. Padma Lochan Meher Aged about 55 Years
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 3 of 40
presently working as Junior Supervisor in Dharmagarh Branch At/P.O.: Dharmagarh, District: Kalahandi.
9. Biranchi Narayan Negi Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Dharmagarh Branch At/P.O.: Dharmagarh, District: Kalahandi.
10. Sahadev Panda Aged about 58 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Junagarh Branch At/P.O.: Junagarh, District: Kalahandi.
11. Ajambila Bishi Aged about 55 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Junagarh Branch At/P.O.: Junagarh, District: Kalahandi.
12. Umesh Chandra Dash Aged about 58 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Junagarh Branch At/P.O.: Junagarh District: Kalahandi.
13. Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra Aged about 59 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Jaipatna Branch At/P.O.: Jaipatna, District: Kalahandi.
14. Narayan Thakur aged about 53 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Jaipatna Branch At/P.O.: Jaipatna, District: Kalahandi.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 4 of 40
15. Gariba Chandra Lahajal Aged about 56 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Jaipatna Branch At/P.O.: Jaipatna, District: Kalahandi.
16. Sribachha Mahananda Aged about 56 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Jaipatna Branch At/P.O.: Jaipatna, District: Kalahandi.
17. Fakir Mohan Thakur Aged about 58 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Kamalpur Branch At/P.O.: Kamalpur, District: Kalahandi.
18. Suresh Chandra Satapathy Aged about 54 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Kamalpur Branch At/P.O.: Kamalpur, District: Kalahandi.
19. Lingaraj Rana Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Kamalpur Branch At/P.O.: Kamalpur, District: Kalahandi.
20. Tribhuban Pradhani Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Kamalpur Branch At/P.O.: Kamalpur, District: Kalahandi.
21. Raghunath Naik Prasad Aged about 51 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Koksara Branch At/P.O.: Koksara, District: Kalahandi.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 5 of 40
22. Pradeep Kumar Panda Aged about 56 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Koksara Branch At/P.O.: Koksara, District: Kalahandi.
23. Ramesh Chandra Sethy Aged about 54 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Khariar Branch At/P.O.: Khariar, District: Nuapada.
24. Harendra Kumar Pradhan Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Komna Branch At/P.O.: Komna, District: Nuapada.
25. Surendra Pradhan Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Komna Branch At/P.O.: Komna, District: Nuapada.
26. Prasanna Kumar Naik Aged about 54 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Sinapali Branch At/P.O.: Sinapali, District: Nuapada.
27. Pramod Kumar Khamari Aged about 56 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Kesinga Branch At/P.O.: Kesinga, District: Kalahandi.
28. Himanshu Sekhar Dash Aged about 59 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Kesinga Branch At/P.O.: Kesinga, District: Kalahandi.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 6 of 40
29. Kishore Chandra Panda Aged about 55 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Khariar Road Branch At/P.O.: Khariar Road, District: Nuapada.
30. Pradeep Kumar Chandrakar Aged about 56 Years presently working as Junior Supervisor in Khariar Road Branch, At/P.O.: Khariar Road, District: Nuapada.
31. Ashok Kumar Bhoi Aged about 55 Years presently working as Assistant Supervisor in Khariar Road Branch At/P.O.: Khariar Road, District: Nuapada.
32. Biswambar Bag Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Khariar Road Branch At/P.O.: Khariar Road, District: Nuapada.
33. Subash Chandra Satapathy Aged about 57 Years presently working as Assistant Supervisor in Golamunda Branch At/P.O.: Golamunda, District: Kalahandi.
34. Sanjukta Satapathy Aged about 52 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Rampur Branch At/P.O.: Rampur, District: Kalahandi.
35. Manoranjan Chand Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Narla Branch At/P.O.: Narla, District: Kalahandi.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 7 of 40
36. Ajaya Kumar Dash Aged about 43 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Narla Branch At/P.O.: Narla District: Kalahandi.
37. Mohanlal Ray Aged about 59 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Bhawanipatna Branch At/P.O.: Bhawanipatna, District: Kalahandi.
38. Umashankar Barik Aged about 57 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Bhawanipatna Branch At/P.O.: Bhawanipatna, District: Kalahandi
39. Saroj Kumar Patra Aged about 56 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Bhawanipatna Branch At/P.O.: Bhawanipatna, District: Kalahandi.
40. Biswanath Goud Aged abut 52 Years presently working as Junior Assistant in Bhawanipatna Branch At/P.O.: Bhawanipatna District: Kalahandi. … Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
| For the Petitioners | : M/s. Ranjit Samal, Satyajit Samal, S. Samal and P. Samal, Advocates |
|---|---|
| For the Opposite party | : M/s. Satya Ranjan Pati, |
| No.1 | S. Mohanty and K. Nayak, Advocates |
| For the Opposite party | : M/s. Dhananjay Mund, |
| Nos.6, 7, 21, 29, 35, 39 | Salauddin Khan, |
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 8 of 40
and 40
Pratap Kumar Behera, Ankann Panda and Sumant Sahu, Advocates
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Dates of Hearing : 23.08.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 23.08.2024
JUDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—
Assailed in the writ petition is the List of Banking Assistants declared eligible for appearing in Written (Merit) Test scheduled to be held on 20.06.2021 for promotion of Banking Assistants-I to next higher grade, i.e., Assistant Manager-II issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Bhawanipatna Central Co-operative Bank, Bhawanipatna in the district of Kalahandi, as enclosed to Letter Reference No.1208— OSCB (ACST) Trg./201920, dated 11.06.2021 of the Principal, Agricultural Cooperative Staff Training Institute, for invocation of provisions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):
“The petitioners therefore most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
i) admit this case,
ii) issue notice to opposite parties for show cause;
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 9 of 40
And pass such further order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the case with cost;
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
Facts:
2. The facts as adumbrated in the writ petition reveal that the petitioners, appointees by the Chief Executive Officer, Bhawanipatna Central Co-Operative Bank, Bhawanipatna, District of Kalahandi, (the opposite party No.1) as Banking Assistants in the various Branches, have been placed in the Final Gradation List published in 2015 at Serial No.111, 126, 112, 129, 125, 102, 118, 135, 110, 100, 116 and 130 respectively.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 10 of 40
Institute-opposite party No.2 for conducting Written Examination in consonance with Rule 17 of the Human Resource Policy for the Central Cooperative Banks of Odisha incorporating the Staff Service Rules, 2011 (“HR Policy” for brevity) for filling up of fourteen vacant posts of Assistant Manager-II by way of promotion.
“Promotion may be based on Written Test, interview and Performance Appraisal for Group-C to Group-B, and Group-B to Group-A. For promotions within Group-A, it could be based on interview and Performance Appraisal. 3 times of the number of vacancies for promotion shall be called for the tests.”
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 11 of 40
Counter affidavit of the opposite party No.1:
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 12 of 40
3. Apropos grievance of non-adherence of provisions of Rule 17 of the HR Policy, the opposite party No.1 asserted by way of counter affidavit that the subjectBank has sponsored names of forty-two numbers of Banking Assistants to appear in the written test for promotion to the post of fourteen numbers of Assistant Manager-II, but out of forty-two numbers of Banking Assistants whose names were shortlisted and sponsored by the Bank to the Agricultural Cooperative Staff Training Institute of Odisha State Cooperative Bank Ltd. for conducting Written Test, two got retired in the meanwhile and two have expired and one did not attend the Written Test.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 13 of 40
No.7937, dated 16.03.2020 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, the posts of Assistant Manager-II (40%) of sanctioned posts are required to be filled up by way of promotion from the Banking Assistant-I Grade as per the amended provision of the Staff Service Rules.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 14 of 40
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 15 of 40
respectively. Therefore, it is contended that the names of the petitioners being placed in the Gradation List below Serial No.41, they were not found eligible to appear in the Written Test.
Counter affidavit of the other opposite parties:
4. It is put forth by the rest of the opposite parties, who have entered appearance through M/s. Dhananjaya Mund, Advocate and Associates, other than the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that the Chief Executive Officer having recommended names of forty-two candidates on 12.4.2021, thirty-seven candidates could appear in the Written Examination held on 20.06.2021 and the Merit List has already been prepared since 02.07.2021.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 16 of 40
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 17 of 40
Consideration of rival contentions and Conclusion:
5. Sri Ranjit Samal, learned Advocate advanced argument that as the petitioners are deprived of participating along with other sponsored candidates, their promotional prospects are at stake. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have failed to act in consonance with the HR Policy qua fourteen vacant posts by not sponsoring forty-two candidates, i.e., three times of vacancies. As is admitted by the opposite parties only thirty-eight candidates were called for the Test, there was no occasion to deny these petitioners to participate in the Test along with others.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 18 of 40
grievance of the petitioners could be agitated before the competent authority as laid in Section 68 of the OCS Act. For ready reference Section 68 of the OCS Act is extracted hereunder:
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 19 of 40
(d) any other Society.
Explanation-I.—
A claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a Society by or to a person or Society mentioned in clauses (a) to (d), shall be a dispute touching the business of the Society within the meaning of this Section, even in case such claim is admitted and the only points at issue are the ability to pay and the manner of enforcement of payment.
Explanation-II.—
A claim by a Financing Bank against a member of a Society which is a member of the Financing Bank and indebted to it for the recovery of dues payable by such member to the Society shall be a dispute touching the business of the of the Financing Bank within the meaning of this Section.
Explanation-III.—
The question whether a person is or was a member of a Society or not shall be a dispute within the meaning of this Section.
Explanation-IV.—
A claim by a surety for any sum or payment due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan advanced by a Society shall be a dispute within the meaning of this Section.
Explanation-V.—
The question whether a person or any one of his family members is carrying on any business prejudicial to the business or interests of the Society,
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 20 of 40
or whether such family member has common economic interest with such person shall be a dispute within the meaning of this Section.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 21 of 40
amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is no more res integra. The Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., by merely getting registered under the OCS Act, does not acquire the status of an “authority” as contemplated in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
15. ***
Answer to question No.1.—
A cooperative society on merely getting registered under the Cooperative Societies Act does not acquire
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 22 of 40
any status of becoming an authority to render it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The supervisory powers given to the Registrar is with the objects of better working of the societies and to give them guidance of well-trained or expert officers.
Answer to question No.1.—
If a Cooperative Bank is born under or created by statute, then it may acquire the status of an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Otherwise, it has to satisfy the essential tests formulated by the various decisions of the Supreme Court for which, however, there cannot be a straitjacket formula. However, it may not be necessary that the society must satisfy all the tests for qualifying to be an ‘authority’ and in a given case, only some of the prominent features may give it that status. But that must be so predominant that on tearing the veil, it may appear that the society is merely a projection of the State, the voice being that of a State and the hands also of the State.
16. As a result of the above discussion, I unhesitatingly come to the irresistible conclusion that this application is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to seek his remedy, if any, available under the general law.”
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 23 of 40
against such decision, this Court, while dismissing said petition, observed in Natha Kharsel (supra) as follows:
“Moreover, Section 67B of the OCS Act provides for an alternative forum with regard to the dispute arising in connection with the disciplinary action taken by a Society or its Committee against any paid servant of the Society. Similarly Section 113 of the OCS Act also provides for an alternative forum in the State Government to exercise the power of revision, wherein the grievance of the petitioner could have been looked into, but the petitioner has neither approached the Tribunal nor the State to invoke/exercise original or revisional power to redress this grievance.”
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 24 of 40
In such background, on the private banking company, the Supreme Court observed that the banking is a kind of profession and a commercial activity and the primary motive behind it is to earn returns and profits. It works like any other private company in the banking business having no monopoly status. These companies have been voluntarily established for their own purpose and interest but their activities are kept under check so that their activities may not go way ward and harm the economy in general. After discussing the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act and Banking Regulation Act, the Supreme Court held that the guidelines provided therein are to maintain proper fiscal discipline and if need arises, the management of the company can be taken over. Therefore, the above noted Acts as discussed earlier mainly contain regulatory provisions to keep a check on their functioning and provide guidelines and do not reflect participatory dominance or control over
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 25 of 40
the affairs of such company. In such back ground, these private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. But in certain circumstances, a writ may issue against such private bodies where these violate statutory provisions. When there is no violation of any statutory provisions, a writ may not be issued at all. It also made clear that there is nothing on the basis of which it can be said that carrying on the profession of banking as akin to carrying on Governmental functions. Rather banking is an old profession in one form or the other carried on by individuals or by a group of them. Losses incurred in the business are theirs as well as the profits. Any business or commercial activity-may be banking or others no doubt have impact on the economy of the country in general, but such activities cannot be classified as one falling in the category of discharging of duties/functions of public nature. Merely because the Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability, it does not mean that private companies carrying on the business of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. Thus, ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the writ petition against Federal Bank is not maintainable.
10. Hence as indicated earlier on an analysis of different provision of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, it is clear that the non-banking financial companies only indulge in ordinary business or commercial activities which cannot be described as akin to Governmental function. Therefore, following the ratio of the above noted judgment, these activities cannot be classified as one falling under
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 26 of 40
the category of discharging of public function or public duty. Thus the opposite party No.1 cannot be covered either under parameter (vii) or (viii) as delineated in Federal Bank case (supra). Admittedly other six parameters are not attracted to the present case. The above ratio has also been referred to in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramakrishna Mission Vrs. Kago Kunya, reported in (2019) 5 Scale 559 = (2019) 5 SCR 452.”
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 27 of 40
representatives from the Central Government and National Dairy Development Board; that State Government sanctioned the staffing pattern of CAMUL; that from the year 1982-83 onwards the Government was extending financial assistance by way of grants to CAMUL to meet the expenditure (including the expenditure relating to its employees); and that for the years 1994-95 though the State Government had sanctioned financial assistance in a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as grant-in-aid, it was not disbursed and consequently CAMUL did not pay the monthly salaries to its employees from December 1994 onwards. It is contended that State Government had all pervasive control over the affairs and management of CAMUL and therefore it should be treated as a department of Government of Assam, though registered as a co-operative society by lifting the corporate veil. It was further contended that State Government was responsible and liable to pay the salaries and emoluments of the employees of CAMUL and it was not justified in withholding the grant amount. The respondent union therefore sought a direction to the State Government to release the arrears of pay and allowances of employees of CAMUL with effect from December 1994 and for a direction to continue to pay the salary and allowances to the employees of CAMUL, every month in future. In addition to the State Government (respondent No.1) and its officers (respondents 2 to 4), the Union of India (respondent No.5) and CAMUL and its Managing Director (respondents 6 and 7) were impleaded as parties to the writ petition.
***
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 28 of 40
5. The various averments of the respondent in the writ petition, about the all pervasive financial, administrative and functional control of CAMUL by the State Government, even if assumed to be true, may at best result in CAMUL being treated as ‘State’ within the meaning of that expression under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If it is a ‘State’, in case of violation of any of the fundamental rights of its employees, by CAMUL as employer, the employees were entitled to claim relief against CAMUL, by taking recourse to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the fact that a corporate body or co-operative society answers the definition of ‘State’ does not make it the ‘State Government’, nor will the employees of such a body, become holders of civil posts or employees of the State Government. Therefore the fact that the CAMUL may answer the definition of ‘State’ does not mean that the State Government is liable to bear and pay the salaries of its employees. CAMUL indisputably is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. Section 85 of the said Act provides that every registered society shall be deemed to be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, to enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes for which it was constituted. Therefore, CAMUL, even if it was ‘State’ for purposes of Article 12, was an independent juristic entity and could not have been identified with or treated as the State Government. ***”
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 29 of 40
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 30 of 40
16. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon by another Constitution Bench in M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649. In that case, the Court was concerned with the issue as to whether Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. After detailed discussion on the functioning of the BCCI, the Constitution Bench concluded that it was not a ‘State’ under Article 12 and made the following observations in this behalf:
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 31 of 40
be construed as an administrative control. At best this is purely regulatory in nature and the same according to this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case [(2002) 5 SCC 111] is not a factor indicating a pervasive State control of the Board.’
17. Before arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Court had summarized the legal position, on the basis of earlier judgments, in para 22, which reads as under:
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 32 of 40
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 33 of 40
like any other cooperative society are mainly regulated in terms of the provisions of the Act, except as provided in the bye-laws of the Society. The State has no say in the functions of the Society. Membership, acquisition of shares and all other matters are governed by the bye-laws framed under the Act. The terms and conditions of an officer of the cooperative society, indisputably, are governed by the Rules. Rule 56, to which reference has been made by Mr. Vijay Kumar, does not contain any provision in terms whereof any legal right as such is conferred upon an officer of the Society.
10. It has not been shown before us that the State exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Society for deep and pervasive control. The State furthermore is not the majority shareholder. The State has the power only to nominate one Director. It cannot, thus, be said that the State exercises any functional control over the affairs of the Society in the sense that the Directors are majority
nominated by the State. For arriving at the conclusion that the State has a deep and pervasive control over the Society, several other relevant questions are required to be considered, namely,
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 34 of 40
11. Respondent 2, the Society does not answer any of the aforementioned tests. In the case of a non-statutory society, the control thereover would mean that the same satisfies the tests laid down by this Court in Ajay Hasia Vrs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722. [See Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vrs. Distt. Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban).]
12. It is well settled that general regulations under an Act, like the Companies Act or the Cooperative Societies Act, would not render the activities of a company or a society as subject to control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the Act are meant to ensure proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to do with its day-to-day functions.’
18. We have, on facts, found that the Co-operative Societies, with which we are concerned in these appeals, will not fall within the expression ‘State’ or ‘instrumentalities of the State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and hence not subject to all constitutional limitations as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.”
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 35 of 40
No.18641 of 2020, vide Judgment dated 31.07.2024 has taken the view that the Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank neither falls within the meaning of “State” nor “instrumentality of the State” as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 36 of 40
and quoted with approval in extenso the aforesaid tests propounded in International Airport Authority case (supra) [Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] and approved in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression ‘authority’ in Article 12 of the Constitution. There the Bench referred to the case of Chander Mohan Khanna Vrs. NCERT (1991) 4 SCC 578 where, after considering the memorandum of association and the rules, this Court came to the conclusion that NCERT was largely an autonomous body and its activities were not wholly related to governmental functions and the government control was confined only to the proper utilisation of the grants and since its funding was not entirely from Government resources, the case did not satisfy the requirements of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Further, reference was also made in that case to the decision of this Court in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vrs. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association and another, (2002) 2 SCC 167, where it was held that the company was an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as it was substantially financed and financially controlled by the Government, managed by a Board of Directors nominated and removable at the instance of the Government and carrying on important functions of public interest under the control of the Government.’
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 37 of 40
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 38 of 40
other Co-operative Society and is regulated in terms of the provisions of the OCS Act and as provided in the bye-laws of the Society. The State has no control over the functions of the Society. Membership, acquisition of shares and all other matters are governed by the byelaws framed under the Act. The terms and conditions of an Officer of the Co-operative Society, indubitably, are governed by the Rules/Regulations. General regulations under the OCS Act would not render the activities of the Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., a society, subject to control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the OCS Act are meant to ensure proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to do with its day-to-day affairs of the bank. Merely because the subject-Bank is subject to the control of statutory authorities such as the Registrar, Joint Registrar, and the Government does not imply that the State exercises direct or indirect control over the society’s affairs in a manner that is deep and all-pervasive.
6. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 as the Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. does not qualify as a “State” or “instrumentality of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 39 of 40
7. In the result, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. For the reasons discussed above and the legal position made clear by the Courts, the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to participate along with the opposite party Nos.3 to 40 cannot, thus, be acceded to.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23rd August, 2024//MRS/LAXMIKANT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Aug-2024 13:33:58
W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021
Page 40 of 40
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the Bank qualifies as 'State' or 'instrumentality of the State' under Article 12 of the Constitution?
Whether the petitioners were entitled to participate in the written test for promotion to Assistant Manager-II?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Natha Kharsel Vrs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and OthersReferred¶169
Natha Kharsel Vrs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, W.P.(C) No.15129 of 2010, disposed of vide Judgment dated 12.08.2024
Banabihari Tripathy Vrs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha and AnotherReferred¶173
Banabihari Tripathy Vrs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha and Another, 1988 (II) OLR 375
Federal Bank Vrs. Sagar ThomasRelied on¶192
Federal Bank Vrs. Sagar Thomas, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4325 · Who else cites this
Ramakrishna Mission Vrs. Kago KunyaReferred¶209
Ramakrishna Mission Vrs. Kago Kunya, reported in (2019) 5 Scale 559
State of Assam Vrs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari SansthaReferred¶210
State of Assam Vrs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 4 SCR 467 · Who else cites this
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Trust Vrs. V.R. RudaniReferred¶222
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Trust Vrs. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 · Who else cites this
VST Industries Ltd. Vrs. VST Industries Workers’ Union & Anr.Referred¶221
VST Industries Ltd. Vrs. VST Industries Workers’ Union & Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 298 · Who else cites this
K.K. Saksena Vrs. International Commission on Irrigation and DrainageReferred¶223
K.K. Saksena Vrs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, (2014) 14 SCR 892 · Who else cites this
Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors. Vrs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors.Referred¶225
Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors. Vrs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111 · Who else cites this
M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶228
M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vrs. State of KeralaReferred¶241
Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vrs. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCR 475 · Who else cites this
S.S. Rana Registrar, Co-operative Societies and AnotherReferred¶242
S.S. Rana Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Another, (2006) 11 SCC 634 · Who else cites this
Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das Vrs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, OdishaReferred¶258
Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das Vrs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha, W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2020
Kulwinder Singh Vrs. State of HaryanaReferred¶262
Kulwinder Singh Vrs. State of Haryana, 2019 (2) ILRPunjab and Haryana 1036
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. versus Satrughan NishadReferred¶263
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. versus Satrughan Nishad and others, (2003) 8 SCC 639 · Who else cites this
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. International Airport Authority of IndiaReferred¶265
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 · Who else cites this
Chander Mohan Khanna Vrs. NCERTReferred¶265
Chander Mohan Khanna Vrs. NCERT (1991) 4 SCC 578 · Who else cites this
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vrs. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ AssociationReferred¶265
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vrs. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association and another, (2002) 2 SCC 167 · Who else cites this
Rajbir Singh versus The Sonepat Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.Referred¶267
Rajbir Singh versus The Sonepat Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Susanta Kumar Panda
Chief Executive Officer Bhawanipatna Central Co-Operative Bank
Principal Agricultural Co-Operative Staff Training Institute Odisha State Co-Operative Bank
Bhabagrahi Bishi
Suchitra Routray
Hrusikesh Mishra
Murahari Sri Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
