RAMSWARUP GUPTA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference stems from a humdrum case of an employee of a Co-operative Marketing Society, whose services have been brought to an end by accepting his resignation and thereafter the employee had taken practically all possible alternative stands by saying that firstly he had not at all submitted any resignation; or if there is any, the same must be forged or even if it bears his signature, he had simply written the same and kept it and never intended to submit it to the authority for acceptance. According to him, it was nothing but a surprise as to how the same could reach the authorities for further action. However, we are at present not concerned with the facts of the case inasmuch as only the following three questions of law have been referred : for being answered by us and we have to confine ourselves to the same :

(2.) The Division ' Bench of this Court was inclined to make this reference in view of certain observations in Dukhoo-ram v. Co-operative Agricultural Association Ltd., Kawardha, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 289 and Ramnath Sharma v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1959 Madh Pra 21'8, which prima facie appear to be divergent. In AIR 1961 Madh Pra 289 (supra) it has been observed and held by the Division Bench of this Court that a Co-operative Society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India- However, in AIR 1959 Madh Pra 218 (supra), it was held by another Division Bench of this Court that a Cooperative Society, registered in accordance with the provisions of the M. P. Cooperative Societies Act, cannot be treated as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. According to the Division Bench, a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not a statutory body. In this back-ground, his reference has arisen and we shall deal with all the three questions referred to us for being answered.

(3.) Before any institution can be said to be a statutory body, it must be created by a Statute and must owe its existence to the Statute. This is the primary thing which has to be seen for deciding the first question. It will be necessary to mark a distinction between an institution which is not created by or under a Statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of its affairs, and the one which is created by the Statute and owes its existence to the same. We come across a number of institutions which though not created by or under any statute, are after formation governed by certain statutory provisions regulating their affairs. Simply by doing so, they do not become statutory bodies. For instance, a company being incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act cannot be said to be a body created by the Companies Act. A company so registered and incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act cannot be a statutory body because it is not created by the Statute. It is nothing but a body created in accordance with and governed by the provisions of the Statute. The same is the case of a Co-operative Society. According to the requirements of law, for the time being in force, certain number of persons form a Society with certain aims and objects. That Society requires registration in accordance with the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. After having been so registered, it becomes liable for following certain rules, regulations and directions framed and issued under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. But such a Society is not created by the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act itself. It still remains a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of certain statute. It does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission or the Life Insurance Corporation, which institutions owe their existence to the Statute itself and have been created by the Statute. For the aforesaid provisions, we rely on the observations made by their Lordshisps of the Supreme Court in Subhdev Singh v. Bhagat-ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331 and Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India. AIR 1975 SC 1329. An unre-ported decision D/- 12-12-1975 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 1974 = (since reported in AIR 1976 SC 888), (Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain) also supports the aforesaid view.