MAIKU Vs. DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the order dated 30th June, 1987 terminating the petitioners1 service being Annexure '2' to the writ petition, on the ground that the said order was passed after attaching stigma to the petitioners without holding any enquiry. Therefore, the said order should be set aside.

(2.) Mr. S. K. Roy holding, the brief of Mr. Triloki Nath counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, took a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the Society with which the petitioners claim to have been engaged is a Co-operetive Society and not a State within the meaning of Article 72 of the Constitution of India. His second ground of attack to the maintainebility of the writ petition is that the service or the petitioners was not governed by any statutory rules and, therefore, while terminating the service the order that was passed by the Society is not a function in discharge of public duty and, therefore, the exceptions is which mandamus can be issued are not present in the facts and circumstances of the case. Then again, according to him, no certiorari can be issued against a private Body.

(3.) Mr. A. Kumar, in counter to the said argument, contended that the order contained in Annexure '2' indicates that the same was passed on the direction of the District Registrar, who is a public functionary. An order passed by a public functionary is amenable to writ jurisdiction. According to him, the direction issued by the District Registrar is in discharge of his public duty and admittedly he is a public functionary. According to him the order is so bad that it fulfills the principle on which the principle of lifting the veil is attracted.