Writ jurisdiction against co-operative societies lies only for statutory breach or public duty, not private disputes.

Article 226 jurisdiction can extend to co-operative societies even where they are not "State" under Article 12, but only if the impugned action involves breach of a statutory duty or performance of a public duty. A writ will not lie for purely private disputes or where no statutory infraction is shown. The earlier Full Bench view was correct only to the limited extent that non-Article 12 status by itself does not attract writ jurisdiction. On the pleaded facts, no statutory violation, public duty, or Article 12 foundation was made out, and the service-related relief sought was essentially private in nature; the petition was therefore not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969; (ii) whether the earlier Full Bench decisions holding that no writ lies against a co-operative society state the correct law; (iii) whether, on the pleadings and facts of the case, the writ petition was entertainable under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

Analysis: Article 226 is wide enough to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority for enforcement of rights and for any other purpose. A co-operative society need not be a State or authority within Article 12 for Article 226 to apply, if the action complained of involves breach of statutory duty or performance of a public duty. A writ will not lie for purely private disputes or where no public duty or statutory infraction is shown.

Conclusion: A writ petition is maintainable against a co-operative society in appropriate cases, but not in the absence of breach of statutory duty or public duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier Full Bench decisions holding that no writ lies against a co-operative society state the correct law.

Analysis: The earlier decision rejecting writ jurisdiction was confined to the question whether a co-operative society is a State within Article 12. That proposition remains correct to that limited extent. However, the broader statement that writ jurisdiction can never lie against a co-operative society is too absolute and does not reflect the wider reach of Article 226, including cases of statutory violation or public duty.

Conclusion: The earlier Full Bench ruling was approved only to the extent that it held that a co-operative society not falling under Article 12 is not covered on that basis alone.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the pleadings and facts of the case, the writ petition was entertainable under Article 226.

Analysis: The petition contained no foundation to show that the respondents were authorities under Article 12, nor was there a pleaded violation of any statutory provision or public duty. The service regulation relied on was not shown to be statutory, and the relief sought was essentially for appointment in a private-law setting.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable under Article 226 on the facts pleaded.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by recognizing limited maintainability of writ petitions against co-operative societies only where statutory violation or public duty is shown, while holding that the present petition failed on its pleadings and was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 can be invoked against a co-operative society even if it is not a State under Article 12, but only where the impugned action involves breach of a statutory obligation or a public duty.

---