State classification under Article 12 depends on the instrumentality test; regulatory supervision alone does not make a co operative the State.

Whether a co-operative society carrying on banking business constitutes the "State" under Article 12 was decided by applying the instrumentality/agency test: a cumulative, fact specific inquiry on State financial assistance, other State aid, nature and extent of State control over management and policy, State conferred monopoly/protection, and whether functions are public and akin to governmental functions. Regulatory or supervisory statutes alone do not convert a body into the State. Co operative principles and statutory vesting of authority in members and elected boards indicate internal member control; supervisory powers of authorities were insufficiently pervasive. Outcome: such a co operative is not "State" for Article 12; writ relief is not maintainable against it.

---

---

Issues: Whether a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, carrying on banking business and governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, falls within the expression "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Legal framework: the instrumentality or agency test as articulated in Ramana Davaram Shetty and refined in Ajay Hasia requires a cumulative, fact-specific inquiry considering factors such as financial assistance by the State, other forms of State assistance, the nature and extent of State control over management and policy, State-conferred monopoly or protection, and whether functions performed are public functions closely related to governmental functions. Regulatory or supervisory statutes and isolated statutory features do not by themselves establish "State" status. Co-operative principles (democratic control, open membership, one member-one vote, management accountable to members) and statutory provisions vesting ultimate authority in members and elected boards indicate internal member control rather than pervasive State control. Specific statutory powers of central or state authorities to issue directions in public interest constitute supervisory control but are not shown to amount to deep and pervasive State control over day-to-day management or policy in the present facts. Comparative authorities and precedents establish that performance of a public function or creation by statute is relevant but not determinative; the cumulative effect of factors must point to government predominance for Article 12 to apply.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellant. A co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, even if carrying on banking business and subject to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, does not thereby fall within the expression "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India; a writ is not maintainable against such a society.

---