Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of the petitioner, who served as a Branch Manager in the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, leading to his termination on 18.11.1993, which he appealed against but was dismissed by the Board of Directors on 18.11.1995. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, seeking to quash the termination order and claiming that the cooperative society was a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the society's functions, including lending to agriculturists, brought it under the purview of the law established in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. The respondent's counsel contended that the State did not exercise deep control over the society, which was governed by its bye-laws and the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968. The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the cooperative society, applying the tests established in previous judgments to determine if it could be classified as a 'State'. The Court concluded that the society did not meet the criteria for deep and pervasive control by the State and upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Definition of 'State' - Cooperative Society's Status - Cooperative Society not deemed a 'State' under Article 12 - The court held that the cooperative society did not satisfy the tests for being classified as a 'State' due to lack of deep and pervasive control by the government. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent cooperative society qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and if the writ petition was maintainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the cooperative society is not a 'State' under Article 12 and that the writ petition was not maintainable. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- maintainability of writ petition
- definition of 'State' under Article 12
- disciplinary proceedings
- cooperative societies regulation
