Orissa High Court
Likin Kumar Bhuyan vs Registrar Of Cooperative .... Opposite ... on 22 October, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 24166 of 2024
Likin Kumar Bhuyan .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shakti Datta Tripathy, Adv.
-versus-
Registrar of Cooperative .... Opposite Parties
Societies, Odisha, BBSR &
Ors.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 22.10.2024
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayer:
"In the premises therefore it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue a RULE NISI calling upon
the opposite parties more particularly opposite parties No.2 and 3 to
show cause as to why the writ application shall not be disposed of in
the light of order No.1, dated 19.09.2024 of this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.(C) No. 22959/2024 under Annexure-2 pursuant to conduct of
statutory audit of the O.P. No.2 under Annexure-1;
And direction shall not be given for regularization of service of the
petitioner in the light of judgment dated 9.9.2021 of this Hon'ble
Court in W.P.(C) No.19951/2020 ( Patitapaban Dutta Dash and others
Vrs State of Odisha and others) affirmed in W.A. No.777/2021 (State
Signature Not Verifiedof Odisha Vrs Patitapaban Dutta Dash) 2023 (1) ILR -CUT, 906;
Digitally Signed And if the opp.parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause,
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Reason: Authentication make the said rule absolute issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
Date: 23-Oct-2024 19:39:38
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
directing opp.parties No.2 and 3 to regularize service of the petitioner
within a cut off time which may kindly be stipulated by the Hon'ble
Court;
Pass any other appropriate order /orders, issue direction/directions,
writ/writs as deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case for ends of justice?
4. A bare perusal of the contents of the Writ Petition, it appears
that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the
judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2020
(Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors -vrs.- Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Odisha and Ors.). The ordering portion of the said
judgment is as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
24. From the aforementioned discussion, it has been established that, for
an organization to be deemed as performing a public function, such
function must be inherently associated with those performed by the State
in its sovereign capacity.
25. Taking a cue from the preceding discussion, there is no evidence on
record to suggest that the Respondent/Bank undertakes functions
comparable to those exclusively carried out by State authorities. The
Respondent/Bank is a non-statutory entity that does not perform any
public function, as banking services are provided by both private and
State entities. Moreover, the Respondent/Bank does not hold any
monopoly status conferred or mandated by law. Although the State may
promote such entities as part of its social policy or economic development
initiatives, this encouragement does not equate to the performance of a
"public function".
26. In the present case, the lack of State control over the management of
the Respondent/Bank significantly influences the conclusion that the
Respondent/Bank does not fall within the definition of a public authority.
The deputation of employees from another bank and their subsequent
absorption by the Respondent/Bank does not imply that it has undertaken
a public function. The Respondent/Bank operates under democratic
control, and the ultimate authority regarding the service conditions of its
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU employees lies with the management of the Respondent/Bank.
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
Date: 23-Oct-2024 19:39:38
// 3 //
27. Therefore, in this petition, the Respondent/Bank does not qualify as a
"State" or "instrumentality of the State" within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution and is thus not subject to the jurisdiction of
Article 226.
V. CONCLUSION:
28. In light of the comprehensive exposition of the law provided above,
and given the absence of any pleadings by the Petitioners to substantiate
that the Opposite Party/bank qualify as a State instrumentality, it is
deemed unnecessary to make any further observations on this matter.
29. The Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable."
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submit that he has no
objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment
passed in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das (supra).
6. Accordingly, in light of the comprehensive exposition of the
law which has been highlighted in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar
Das (supra) and given the absence of any pleadings by the
Petitioner to substantiate that the Opposite Party/bank qualify as
a State instrumentality, it is deemed unnecessary to make any
further observations on this matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed as not maintainable.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
