Writ Petition is Maintainable Against Statutory Directives Issued to a Cooperative Society for Terminating Employees

The appellants were employees of the Bahuudheshiya Tejpur Sadhan Sehkari Samiti Limited (Respondent No. 4), a primary cooperative society

Following an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, the District Assistant Registrar (Respondent No. 3) issued an order dated 20.07.2022 directing Respondent No. 4 to cancel the appellants' appointments

Consequently, Respondent No. 4 terminated their services on 29.08.2022

The appellants challenged these orders in WPSS No. 1981 of 2022. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that a primary cooperative society is not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, relying on S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies

The appellants filed this intra-court appeal contesting that dismissal

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the termination of services by a cooperative society is predicated upon a mandatory direction issued by a statutory authority exercising powers under the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003

The Court examined the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders passed by statutory authorities.

S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies (2006) 11 SCC 634, which holds that a cooperative society not performing a public function or not under pervasive state control is not "State"

Actions taken by a statutory authority (the Registrar/Assistant Registrar) in the exercise of powers under the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, are subject to judicial review

The Division Bench observed that while the employer (Respondent No. 4) might be a private cooperative body, the catalyst for the termination was the order dated 20.07.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3

Respondent No. 3 acted in the capacity of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, exercising statutory powers under the Act of 2003

The Court reasoned that since the appellants challenged the validity and jurisdiction of a statutory authority's direction, the writ court is obligated to examine whether such an exercise of power was within the scope of the Act and factually valid

Therefore, the petition was not merely directed against a private entity (Respondent No. 4) but against a state official's statutory order, making the writ petition maintainable

The writ petition is maintainable because it challenges a statutory direction issued by a public official (Assistant Registrar)

The Court restored WPSS No. 1981 of 2022 to its original number and directed that it be decided on its merits