LexKULCHHINDER SINGH & ORS. versus HARDAYAL SINGH BRAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ESO
KULCHHINDER SINGH & ORS.
v.
HARDAYAL SINGH BRAR & ORS.
March 18, 1976
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.)
Constitution of India-Article 226 and 221-Whether a contractual obliga-
tion can be enforced by writ jurisdiction.
The appellants are permanent servants of the Punjab State Co-operative
Land Mortgage Bank and were working as Assistants since the year
1968.
The grievance of the appellants is that the contesting respondents were directly
recruited to the higher post of In.~pecting Officers, Junior Accountants
and
Accountants in violation of Service Rules.
What the appellants call Service
Rules is nothing but a contract arrived at as a result of the collecrive bargain-
' '
ing with ·the management.
The writ petition filed by the appellants was dis·
missed by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of High
Court on the ground that no writ petition was maintainable against a Co-
l
operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution. On appeal by special
l
leave the appellants contended :
(I) The co-operative Bank in question is "other authority" within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore. falls with-
in the definition of State.
(2) The Co-operative Bank is a public authority.
(3) Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies
Act are subject to the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article
226 of the Constitution, since this provision is widely worded wrib:
may be issued for any purpose against any person.
Respcndents contended :
(1) that the Co-operative Bank is not other authority or a public autho-
""
rity and no writ can lie against it.
,.
(2) The appellants are trying to enforce the contractual obligation for
which no writ can lie.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) The Court did not decide the question whether a Co-operative
Society is other authority or public authority because it is clear from a close
perusal of the writ petition that essentially the appellants are seeking merely
to ensure an agreement entered into between the employees and the
Co-
operative Bank. At its best, the writ petition seeks enforcement of a binding
contract but the neat and necessary repel'lant is that the remedy of Art. 226
is unavailable to enforce a contract qua contract. We are aware of the wide
amplitude of Article 226 and its potent use to correct manifest injustice but
cannot agree that contractual obligations in the ordinary course without even
statutory complexion can be enforced under Atricle 226. [683F--1{, 684C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 747 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
5-12-7 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition
No. 6344/74.
M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthi and Ramesh C. Pathak for the
appellants.
·
•
I
•
KULCHHINDER v. H. s. BRAR (Krishna lyer, /.)
681
J. L. Gupta, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwala for Respondents
A
Nos. 5 to 22/75.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-This Civil Appeal, by special leave under Art.
136, raises a common question of great moment, the decision of which
may have a wider litigative fall-out than may appear on the surface.
The first question expressed, manu brevi, is as to whether a writ may
issue, under Art. 226, agairut a Society registered under the Punjab
Cooperative Societies Act (Act XXV of 1961) setting aside a selection
list at the instance of the aggrieved appellants who were not included
therein.
The High Court (both tl:ie learned Single
J udgc
and the
Division Bench) following an earlier judgment of that Court in Dharam
Pal v. State of Punjab(') held the writ petition to be incompetent,
directed as it was against a Cooperative Society.
Shri M. K. Ramamurthy challenges the holding of the High Court
on the score that the Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank
Ltd., (State Banlc, for short) is 'other authority' within the meaning
of Art. 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, falls within the definition
of State.
Consequently, a writ inay issue against it.
Secondly, he
contends that the State Bank is a public authority and, therefore, falls
within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. His third plea is much
wider in its sweep, for he urges that Cooperative Societies registered
under the Cooperative Societies Act are subject to the jurisdiction of
High Courts under Art. 226 of the Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.