DEVDAS Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is an employee of the Chittoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. A criminal case has been launched against him which is pending, and in respect of some of the matters which are pending in the criminal Court, it is alleged, that an enquiry is being conducted by the Asstt. Registrar against the appellant under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is in this background that the appellant came to this court in O.P. No. 4687 seeking a direction to restrain the Assistant Registrar from proceeding with the domestic enquiry on the ground that it will be prejudicial to the appellant in the prosecution if domestic enquiry is proceeded against him. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition principally on the ground that a writ petition is not maintainable against a co-operative society.

(2.) It was however contended by Shri Ram Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, that a Government servant having been appointed as Administrator, the jurisdiction of this court can be invoked against the officer of the Government and that therefore that writ petition is maintainable. So far as this court is concerned, it has ruled in Vijayan Vs. Board of Directors, S.T. Co-operative Bank, 1983 KLT 705 ; Shertallai Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 1984 KLT 971 and Arumughan Vs. Kadalunda Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., 1960 KLT 727 that a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a co-operative society. What has happened in this case is that the elective element stood substituted with the appointment of the Administrator, who will be in charge of the administration. It is the administrator who exercises the power of the Managing Committee of the Society. The essential character of the institution does not get altered merely because the Admn. is appointed under the Act. Hence, if a writ petition is not maintainable against a co-operative society, it does not mean that the same is maintainable merely because an Administrator has been appointed superseding the Managing Committee. The learned single Judge was, therefore, right in repelling the contentions of the appellant in this behalf.

(3.) It was next urged by the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ramkumar that the co-operative bank in question is an instrumentality of State and therefore it is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. It is necessary to point that no such case was pleaded or argued before the learned single Judge. We cannot, therefore, examine this contention as it is not a pure question of law.