Mr. Shakti Datta Tripathy, Adv. -versus & Ors. v. CONCLUSION

Mr. Shakti Datta Tripathy, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha, BBSR & Ors. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 22.10.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

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 of Odisha Vrs Patitapaban Dutta Dash) 2023 (1) ILR -CUT, 906; And if the opp.parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2024 19:39:38 // 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?

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 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 employees lies with the management of the Respondent/Bank. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU 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.”

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).