K.C.Agrawal, K.N.Sharma, JJ. - (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of opinion that Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sahakan Sangh, Lucknow being neither State nor an authority within the provision of Article has held by this Court in 1982 All CJ 1 (FB) : 1982 UPLBEC.S9 (FB). The writ petition is not maintainable.
(2.) To the similar effect is the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 107 (FB), and AIR 1982 Orissa 38. In these two judgments of the courts cited before us the High Courts have referred to the various decisions of the Supreme Court and have taken the view that the co-operative Society is not a state.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner next contended that even if the Co-operative Society is not a state but since statutory duty is cast upon it to make appointments or promotions in accordance with the regulation of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulation, 1975, the appointment of respondent no, 3 Sri P.G. Mathur was invalid. It may be noted that these regulations did not apply to the respondent no. 1. These regulations have been applied by a different resolution passed by the respondent no. 1. As a result of that resolution the aforesaid U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulation have become applicable. That being so the result would be that regulation 5 would be deemed to have been framed and made by respondent no. 1. Hence it does not have the statutory force which is capable of being enforced under Article 226 of the constitution. For this view also we find support from Full Bench decision in 1982 All CJ 1 : 1982 UPLBEC 89.;