- (1.) THE petitioner was work-Ing as the Secretary of the Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited, Begamabad Modinagar respondent No. 2 on February 4. 1969, the respondent No. 1. the U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh Limited. Lucknow. which is a federation of Co-operative Societies and of which respondent No. 2 is a mem ber, passed on order compulsorily retir ing the petitioner from service from September 30. 1969. on his attaining the age of 55 years. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ petition.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that no writ can issue to respondent No. 1 which is a private body. The preliminary objec tion is well founded. By this writ peti tion the petitioner has sought the quash ing of the order of compulsory retire ment as well as a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining respondent No. I from taking any action against the peti tioner under Rule 11 of the Cane Co operative Service Rules, which makes provision for compulsory retirement. The writ is sought against respondent No. t which is a Co-operative Society register ed under the U. P. Co-operative Socie ties Act, 1912 and now deemed to be re gistered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in Narasimhan v. Chicacole Co-operative Central Bank, (1959) 1 Lab LJ 554 (Andh Pra):- "Writ which Is available to an aggrieved party could not be issued to private bodies or organisation like com panies or co-operative societies. It could be issued only to inferior Courts, tri bunals, and bodies entrusted with powers by the law of the land to affect the right of parties. Hence an order passed by a co-operative society dispensing with the services of one of its employee could not be challenged in a writ proceeding on the ground that such order was passed in violation of the bye-laws framed by the Society." In Sohan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529 the Supreme Court has held that normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against a private individual and that such an order is made against a person directing him to do some particular thing, speci fied in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a pub lic duty. In Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. Dy. Custodian. AIR 1966 SC 334 the Supreme Court observed:- "............ a writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their juris diction." Again. In Praga Tools Corpn. v Imanual. AIR 1969 SC 1306 the Sup reme Court held:- "Therefore, the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming it a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom it is sought: An order of mandamus is, in form, a command dir ected to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specifi ed which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body ......... The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a sta tutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which en forcement could be sought by means of a mandamus, nor was there in its work men any corresponding legal right for enforcement of any such statutory or public duty." It is thus clear that normally manda mus is issued to a public body or autho rity to compel it to perform some pub lic duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. In the present case respondent No. 1 against whom the writ is sought is a Co-operative Society, which is a pri vate body. There is no allegation by the petitioner that any public duty is cast upon this society and the writ is not sought in respect of any such public duty. The main ground upon which the writ is sought is that Rule 11 on the basis of which the impugned order was passed is illegal and, therefore, the im pugned order is without any basis. This cannot be said to be in violation of any public duty imposed upon the Cooperative Society by any statute. It is, there fore, clear that the petitioner cannot claim a writ of mandamus or a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus against respondent No. 1. It is equally clear that, in the present case, no writ of certioarari lies because such a writ lies only against orders of public authorities acting quasi judicially. I am. There fore of opinion that the writ petition is in competent.
(3.) THE writ petition is according ly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;