Writ jurisdiction over co-operative societies depends on whether they are truly State instrumentalities under the Article 12 tests.

A co-operative society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 only if the cumulative factual indicators show that it is in substance an instrumentality or agency of Government. The relevant tests include governmental ownership, financial assistance, monopoly status, deep and pervasive State control, public importance of functions, and transfer of governmental functions. Limited regulatory powers, nomination of a few directors, or reference of exceptional disputes to Government do not by themselves establish State character. On the facts stated, the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited was not shown to be an authority under Article 12, so certiorari was not maintainable against it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 can be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it is in substance an instrumentality or agency of the State; (ii) Whether the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited was shown to be an instrumentality or projection of the State so as to sustain a writ of certiorari against it.

Issue (i): Whether a society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 can be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it is in substance an instrumentality or agency of the State.

Analysis: The ratio of the earlier Full Bench view that a society merely registered under the Act was not amenable to writ jurisdiction was qualified in light of the later Supreme Court decisions on Article 12. The controlling principle was that the legal form of the body is not decisive if, on the cumulative effect of relevant factors, it is found to be an instrumentality or agency of Government. The Court applied the settled tests of governmental ownership, financial assistance, monopoly status, deep and pervasive State control, public importance of functions, and transfer of governmental functions.

Conclusion: A society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act can be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if it is in substance an instrumentality or agency of the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited was shown to be an instrumentality or projection of the State so as to sustain a writ of certiorari against it.

Analysis: No factual foundation was laid to satisfy the governing tests for State instrumentalities. The provisions relied upon, including those concerning regulation-making powers, nomination of a limited number of directors, and reference of exceptional disputes to Government, did not amount to deep and pervasive State control. They showed only limited supervisory or enabling powers and did not displace the predominance of elected management. The Bank was therefore not shown to be an authority within Article 12, and the asserted public-law character necessary for certiorari was absent.

Conclusion: The Bank was not established to be an instrumentality or agency of the State, and the writ of certiorari was not maintainable against it.

Final Conclusion: The earlier Full Bench view was qualified only to the extent that a co-operative society acting as a true State instrumentality would fall within writ jurisdiction, but on the facts of this case the respondent Bank did not satisfy that test and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A society registered under a statute is amenable to writ jurisdiction only when the cumulative effect of the relevant factors shows that it is in substance an instrumentality or agency of Government; mere registration and limited supervisory controls are insufficient to attract Article 12 or sustain certiorari.

---