Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Special Officer of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Limited, Madras. In and by the said order, the petitioner was reduced to the rank of Slnes Assistant (Accounting Clerk) from the cadre of Supervisor. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned counsel appearing for the res-pondents that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court reported in R. Thamilarasan, etc., P Kantian, etc. v. The Director of Hand-looms and Textiles, Madras and others 1 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought to argue before roe that the Full Bench of this court was not concerned with lnl co-operative societies and in any event, the respondent/Co-operative Society will not come within the four corners of the decision rendered by the Full Bench. The learned counsel refers to the fact that the petitioner in this writ petition had once come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and it was held in S. Varadarajanv. The Speciln Officer, TUCS. Ltd 2 that the writ petition is maintainable. But it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said judgment was considered by the Full Bench and even though they have not specificlnly overruled the said judgment, it is impliedly overruled. 2. The learned counsel for the petitio ner says, inas much the government has ln most full control over the society and 85 per cent of the shares are held by the government, this society will not come within the purview of the Full Bench judgment. I have carefully perused the judgment of the Full Bench of this court. I am inclined to hold that the Full Bench had rested its decision on the basis that the co-operative society is not a statutory body and it is not created by a statute. On the other hand, a co-operative society is a body created by a group of individulns acting in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. I am inclined to hold that the Full Bench had rested its decision on the basis that the co-operative society is not a statutory body and it is not created by a statute. On the other hand, a co-operative society is a body created by a group of individulns acting in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. In fine, the Full Bench in Thamilarasans case 1 (supra), held as follows: “Viewed from any angle and in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and of the other High Courts, particularly the two Full Bench judgments of different High Courts referred to above, it appears to us that a co-operative society, is not an authority nor an instrumentlnity or agency of the Government to attract Art. 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.” 3. Hiving regard to the above categoricln decision of the Full Bench it will not be proper for me to canvass the issue again. I am clearly of the opinion that the Full Bench has categoriclnly laid down that a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction, whatever may be its constitution. 4. In this view of the matter, this writ petilion is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.