Jatinder Pal Singh Vs the Managing Director, Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. and Another

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2026 in CWP No. 21997 of 2018, wherein, it has been held that the respondent-Society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, no writ petition is maintainable and the same has been dismissed with liberty to the appellant to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum.

The petitioner appeared in person and submits that he has been continuously agitating this claim since the year 2016 onward and a period of 10 years has elapsed when the said finding has been given and keeping in

KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

LPA No. 2033 of 2026 (O&M)

¶21

2

view the fact that he will again have to litigate, the petition should have been entertained.

Though, today the lawyers are not appearing due to a Resolution passed, the appellant was given an opportunity for adjournment of the case so that lawyer can appear but he submits that he has already argued the case and, therefore, appropriate order be passed.

We have heard the appellant, who appears in person and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

The writ petition is only maintainable in case, the Cooperative Society is performing any public function or is an instrumentality of the State not only qua the aspect of financial assistance being provided by the State but also of its administrative by the State Government Officers. The appellant has not been able to show either to prove that the respondentSociety against which the claim has been raised as a State falls within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Single Judge has dealt with the said issue in extensive by placing reliance upon the settled principle of law that the respondent-Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. is not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and does not come within the definition of the other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India “keeping in view the fact of its being assisted financially and the management of the same”, keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sultanpur U.P. vs. Satrughan Nishad and

others, AIR 2003 SC 4531.

¶28

KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

LPA No. 2033 of 2026 (O&M)

¶30

3

Further, the interference can only be done in case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse either on facts or on law but the appellant has not been able to prove the same.

Further, the writ petition has only been dismissed on the ground of maintainability but liberty has already been given to the appellant to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievance hence, no interference is called for by this Court in the present appeal.