@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ramachandra Rao
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings bearings No. CESS G. M. D. No. 1529/75-76 dated 10/11-9-1975 of the General Manager, Co-operative Electricity Supply Society Limited, Sircilla, removing him from service. Various contentions have been raised in the Writ Petition challenging the impugned order. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri P.A. Chowdary the learned Counsel for the respondent contending that the respondent is a private society and therefore a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution does not lie. Sri H.S. Guraja Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is a co-operative society a statutory and public body and therefore a writ lies but this question is no longer res integra so far as this case is concerned.
2. In Writ Petition No. 387/72 dated 14-3-1973 Mirmuzam Ali Khan, vs. The Managing Director the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Barkatpura, Hyderabad-27 W.P. 889/72 dt. 14-3-1973 Obul Reddy J. (as he then was) held that he had held in a number of petitions that Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be called in aid by those serving in statutory Corporations or companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, or societies registered under the Co-op. Societies Act, and that the petitioner therein, who was an employee of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, cannot maintain the Writ petition against the Society under Article 226 of the Constitution. In W.P. No 206/75 N. Anjaneyulu Raju vs. The Land Mortgage Bank Narsapur West Godavari Represented by Its President and Two Others W P No. 206/75 the petitioner, an employee of Land Mortgage Bank, Narasapur, which was a Primary Bank, sought to challenge the order reverting him from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Supervisor. Kondaiah J. following the decisions in Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagatram and 1975 (1) SLR 605 Sahbajit Tehari vs. Union of India 1975 (1) SLR 422 held that no writ could be issued against a society registered under the co-operative Societies Act. On appeal in W.P.N. 474/75 this decision was confirmed by Sambasiva Rao and Madhusudana Rao JJ. by their Judgment dated 18-10-1976. Their Lordships observed at page 8 of the judgment as follows :--
It must, however, be noticed that the petitioner is not an employee of the second respondent. He is an employee in the first respondent bank which if without doubt a private body.
3. Again at page 10 the learned Judges observed as follows :--
Even if it is construed as an order in violation of by-law 8, it cannot be said that the second respondent violated any statutory Rule or Rule having the force or even the flavour of law. The bye-law is that the first respondent Land Mortgage Bank Narsapur, has been formed under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. In Co-Operative Bank vs. Ind Tri. Hyderabad 1970 S.C. 245 the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that the bye-laws of a co-operative Society cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. Non-operative of by-law 8 by the first respondent bank cannot be considered to be violation of any statutory obligation. In this view of the matter the order of our learned brother dismissing the appellant''s petition does not call for any interference.
4. This decision therefore, dearly supports the contention of Sri P.A. Chowdary that the second respondent is a society registered under the cooperative societies Act which is a private body and therefore no writ lies against the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sri H.S. Gururaja Rao, relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sambasiva Rao and Madhusudhan Rao JJ., in Osmania College, Kurnool Represented by Us Correspondent vs. D.V. Subba Sastry and Others W A No. 339 of 1976=1976 ALT (NRC 195). But in that case the learned Judges held that the Osmania College is a public body which discharges Public duties and therefore it is amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 22 of the Constitution. Their Lordships followed the decision of the Full Bench in
