DAYA RAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before start of the argument, counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. C.S. Rawat, has raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, on the ground that respondent No. 2, which is the Cooperative Cane Development Union, under which, the Sugar Mill is operating, is not a state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition would not be maintainable. Let me answer and meet this preliminary question raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, that too, after the order of this Court dated 15.10.2019, inviting counter affidavit, after hearing the counsel for the respondent, and not even that after filing counter affidavit on 18.02.2020, without raising a plea of maintainability at the threshold itself.

(2.) The Cooperative Societies Act, under the Old Act of 1965, as well as the Act of 2003, called as the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, as notified, in the official gazette on 21.05.2003, and as made applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, in its Section 9 provides the legal status to the Cooperatives, as to be a Body Corporate. Section 9 of the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, which is quoted hereunder :-

(3.) By virtue of which, the Cooperatives have been made entitled to register themselves with the Registrar Cooperative Societies of the State, and have their perpetual succession, common seal and the power to hold property and to conduct its business independently, and has been vested with legal right to sue and be sued as an independent legal entity.