RAM SWARUP GUPTA Vs. M.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . This reference steams 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 in as much 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.) 1959 JLJ 459 = AIR 1959 MP 218, which prima facie appear to be divergent. In Dukhuram's case (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 Ramnath Sharma's case (supra). it was held by another Division Bench of this Court that a Co -operative Society, registered in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act, can not 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, this reference has arisen and we shall deal with all the three questions referred to us for being answered.

(3.) AS regards the second question whether a writ of mandamus, direction or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a High Court against a society registered under Madhya Pradesh Co -operative Societies Act, 1960, it is apparent that as observed by us earlier, a Co -operative Society registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Co -operative Societies Act does not fall within the definition of the term "other authorities" as stated in Article 12 of the Constitution and is not a statutory body. Therefore, it will suffice to observe that normally such societies will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court except in cases where according to the provisions of the statute or rules or regulation framed under the Act by which the Society is governed, there is a statutory of public duty imposed on it, and the enforcement of which is being sought. Article 226 of the Constitution provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus etc. for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. It is well understood that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of public or statutory duty, in the performance of which one, who applies for it, has a legal right and interest. For the reasons stated above the condition precedent for issue of a mandamus will be that there must be a legal right to the performance of a legal duty. An order of mandamus is nothing but a command directed to a person, Corporation or Tribunal requiring them to do a particular thing which pertains to their office and is in the nature of public duty. It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed must be a public official or an official body. We rely on Praga Toll Corporation V. C.V. Imanual AIR 1975 SC 1331, in this respect. But if there is a statutory obligation in respect of any subject matter on the society to carry out the same and the society fails to do so, or acts in contravention of the same, it may be a proper subject matter for issuing a writ in appropriate cases commanding compliance of the statutory requirements. In other words, so long as no case is made out of any breach of statutory provisions or existence of legal right in one, who claims the writ, and a legal obligation in the society to do something, no writ can be issue against the society. Whenever, it is pointed out that any statutory provisions requiring the society to act in a particular manner creates a right or interest in favour of the person concerned, it will be permissible for such person to approach the High Court for seeking the writ of mandamus to direct the society to follow the statue and not to commit breach of the same. Thus, we would like to make it clear that the Co -operative Society will be amenable to writ jurisdiction only in cases relating to performance of legal obligations and duties imposed by a statute creating a corresponding legal right in one.