DEVADAS Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is an employee of the Chittoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., a Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative 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 Asst. Registrar against the appellant under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is in this background that the appellant came to this Court in O.P.No.4687 of 1987 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 cooperative society.

(2.) It was however contended by Sri. Ramakumar, 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 the writ petition is maintainable. So far as this court is concerned, it has ruled in 1983 KLT 705 between Vijayan v. Board of Directors, ST. Cooperative Bank, 1984 KLT 971 between Shertallai Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, and 1960 KLT 727 between Arumughan v. Kadalunda Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., that a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a cooperative 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 Administrator is appointed under the Act. Hence if a writ petition is not maintainable against a cooperative 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 cooperative 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,