JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The petitioner joined the service of the Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 12th December, 1970 and the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 joined the service in the said Bank on 19th December and 22nd December, 1970 respectively. The said respondents, according to the petitioner, are juniors but the respondent No. 6 was promoted as Accountant and thereafter as Branch Manager and respondent No. 7 was placed above the petitioner in the Gradation List. The petitioner joined the Bank as Office Assistant and served in different Branches till 1978 and in January 1979 he was instructed to act as Officiating Accountant in the Tarkeshwar Branch with D. A. at the rate of Rs. 15/-. Thereafter the petitioner was acting as Accountant of Dhaniakhali Branch. Thereafter he was promoted as full fledged Accountant and also acted as Branch Manager of the said Branch from time to time. The respondent No. 5 issued a letter dated 1st/3rd October, 1985 to the Principle of the Netaji Subhas Co-operative Training College, Kalyani, for admitting the petitioner in the said College for undergoing short term training in Non-Agriculture Advance Course. On the recommendation of the Pay Committee the post of Accountant was included in Grade-IIA but while the said recommendation the Bank grouped the Accountants in Group-IIB did not grant the petitioner the scale enumerated in Grade-III as per the scales revised. On the contrary the petitioner was granted the scale enumerated in Grade-IV causing thereby substantial monetary loss. The respondent No. 7 who is junior to the petitioner is now acting as Supervisor. His main grievance is the order of transfer dated 15th October, 1985 passed by the Executive Officer of the Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chinsura, transferring the petitioner from his present posting as Branch Accountant (Officiating) Dhaniskhali to Champadanga as Officiating Supervisor. According to the petitioner the transferred post at Champadanga is a junior post and as such the petitioner has been demoted. The petitioner prays for quashing the said order of transfer dated 15th October, 1985. 2. By a Supplementary Affidavit the petitioner stated that the present writ application is moved on the strength of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. According to the petitioner the transferred post at Champadanga is a junior post and as such the petitioner has been demoted. The petitioner prays for quashing the said order of transfer dated 15th October, 1985. 2. By a Supplementary Affidavit the petitioner stated that the present writ application is moved on the strength of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. With the promulgation of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies brought into existence a Board the members of which were nominated by the Registrar. The Board is not an elected Board and is in existence for the last sixteen years. The State Government is a major share-holder of the authorised share capital of the Bank and the Bank is totally managed by the State Government and is under the State control, the inspection is made under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 3. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. the Bank Authorities filed Affidavit-in-Opposition. The Affidavit is affirmed by the Deputy Manager of the Bank and states that the petitioner joined the Bank on 12th December, 1970 as Office Assistant and not s an Assistant and in the appointment letter it was stated that the posts of Office Assistant and Supervisor are interchangeable. From 1st January, 1979 the petitioner was treated as Junior Assistant and the pay was termed as Assistant Grade II. The petitioner was declared as Assistant on and from 1st January, 1979 in the scale of Rs. 150-375/- by order dated 28th October, 1978 and the above scale was revised from 1st May, 1982 to Rs. 300-750/- as per Bipartite Agreement between the Management and the Staff Association and was approved by the Second Industrial Tribunal, Government of West Bengal and was termed as Grade-V. The respondent No. 6 joined the Bank as Office Assistant and from 1st January, 1971 his pay scale was Rs. 140-330/- and was designated as Junior Assistant. Both the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 and eight of their staff members appeared in a selection test on 23rd July, 1974 for the post of Branch Accountant and on the basis of the selection test respondent No. 6 and three others were qualified and promoted. The respondent No. 6 is now working as Bank Manager and the post of Accountant and Branch Manager are interchangeable. The respondent No. 6 is now working as Bank Manager and the post of Accountant and Branch Manager are interchangeable. The respondent No. 7 joined the Bank on 22nd December, 1970 as Supervisor, the bio-data of the employees were collected by the Management and after considering all points the petitioner was placed below the respondent No. 7 and this was duly communicated to the petitioner. The pattern at Dhaniakhali Branch is stated in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit. It is denied that the petitioner was promoted to the substantive post of Accountant or confirmed to any higher post. It is stated by the deponent that the private-respondent No. 7 referred to hereinbefore was legitimately placed above the petitioner in the Gradation List and the Bank has not acted illegally or arbitrarily or beyond its jurisdiction; and everything was done according to the Rules and Guidelines of the Bank. After the order of transfer dated 15th October, 1985 was issued the Branch of Dhaniakhali Branch also issued release order with effect from afternoon of 17th October, 1985. 4. The most significant point is that the respondent Bank never raised in the Affidavit-in-Opposition the point that the writ petitioner is not maintainable. But Mr. Chatterjee appearing for M/s. Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Executive Officer raised the preliminary point at the time of argument that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Bank being a co-operative society within the meaning of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is not amendable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Co-operative Bank of a Co-operative Societies comes within the provisions of the said Act of 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Bank is managed by a board of directors who are elected by the members and share-holders of the Bank in the Annual General Meeting. The State Government is also one such share-holder. He further submitted that under Section 24 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 the finance authority of the co-operative society vests in the general body of members in a general meeting and according to Section 71 of the said Act no member of the co-operative society have more than one vote. He further submitted that under Section 24 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 the finance authority of the co-operative society vests in the general body of members in a general meeting and according to Section 71 of the said Act no member of the co-operative society have more than one vote. If the said two Sections re read with Rule 22(2) of the Rules it would appear that for the purpose of taking any decision in the general meeting every resolution should be decided by a majority of votes. It is further submitted that even if the State Government is a member it cannot dictate or control the formation of policy of the Bank. The policies are made in the general meeting and implemented by the Board of Directors elected in the Annual General Meeting. Section 25 of the Act indicates the range of activities including approval of programme of activities etc. and so far as the finance is concerned the general body and not the State Government has the final say. It is admitted that a co-operative society is required to limit its activities within the framework of the Act and Rules as a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1861 or the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 is of the same status. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that a co-operative society or a company or a society cannot be said to be created under a statute. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that a marketing co-operative society dealing with essential commodities re bound to comply with the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the various orders framed thereunder. So a co-operative society carrying on the banking business are obviously required to limit their activities within the scheme of law relating to banking. It is the further argument of Mr. Chatterjee that the respondent- Co-operative Bank comes within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act of 1983 read with Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. As the instant bank is a Central Co-operative Bank it is required to carry out the banking business and is obliged to comply with and/or limits its activities in accordance to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, so far as applicable to the Co-operative Societies and similar other Acts. As the instant bank is a Central Co-operative Bank it is required to carry out the banking business and is obliged to comply with and/or limits its activities in accordance to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, so far as applicable to the Co-operative Societies and similar other Acts. Merely because the respondent-Bank is obliged to follow or comply with provisions of the aforesaid Acts, it does not loss its original status. He cited the decision of the Executive Committee of (1) Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narayan ( AIR 1976 SC 888 ). In this case it was held that the Executive Committee of a Degree College which is registered under the Registration of Co-operative Societies Act and is affiliated to Agra University (subsequently to Meerut University) is not a statutory body, merely because it is affiliated to the University or is regulated by the provisions of the University Act or the Statutes made thereunder. It is submitted that a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is just a private company unless the Government controls the whole management or the majority of the shares. A company incorporated under the Companies Act may also undertake the banking business, namely, United Industrial Bank Ltd. It is submitted that there are three categories of banks : Nationalised Bank, Scheduled Bank and Non-Scheduled Bank. The third category comes under private banking system and is not controlled by the Government and the respondent-Co-operative Bank here falls under the third category. References were made to certain decisions including (2) AIR 1977 SC 112 (The Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Narayan Rath) wherein the Supreme Court left the question of the maintainability of the writ petition in respect of a co-operative society open without making any specific observation. The Calcutta decision reported in (3) Cal LT 1988 (2) HC 407 (Sasti Kanta Hathi v. State of West Bengal) held that a co-operative society is an institution under Article 12 of the Constitution and the decision is based on the case of (4) Ajoy Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 . But according to Mr. But according to Mr. Chatterjee if the ratio decided in Sasti Kanta Hathi’s case (supra) is based upon Ajoy Hasia’s case (supra) or the decision of (5) Ramana Dayaram Setty v. The International Airport Authority of India ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) then the respondent Bank is not authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is finally submitted that the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act or the Banking Regulation Act are merely the regulatory in nature and cannot be said to control the organisation as to make it an instrument and/or agent of the Government and as such not utilised against the respondent Bank. It is further submitted that in the light of the above submission the order of transfer cannot be interfered with as the High Court is not competent to decide the legality of the transfer order in writ jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Banerji, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that test or tests which are required to be satisfied before a body can be said to be a statutory authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution was thoroughly considered by the Supreme Court in the case of the International Airport Authority of India (supra). Many criteria were set down by the Supreme Court including (a) existence of deep and pervasive State Control may afford and indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality; and (b) if the functions of the Corporation re of public importance and closely related to governmental function, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the Corporation as an instrumentality or agency of the Government. The criteria as set out in the decision of the International Airport Authority of India (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in (6) AIR 1981 SC 212 (Som Prakash Rekhy v. Union of India). The respondent-Bank is totally controlled and administered by the Government of West Bengal for the last sixteen years and there is no elected Board of Directors and the present Board of Directors of the Bank is nominated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The day-to-day administration of the said Bank is being carried out through the Chief Executive Officer, Field Officer, and Deputy Manager, all of whom have been sent on deputation from the Department of Co-operative of the State of West Bengal and are public servants. The day-to-day administration of the said Bank is being carried out through the Chief Executive Officer, Field Officer, and Deputy Manager, all of whom have been sent on deputation from the Department of Co-operative of the State of West Bengal and are public servants. These facts are stated on oath in the Supplementary Affidavit by the petitioner and not controverted by the respondent-Bank. It indicates that there is a deep and pervasive State Control and as such the writ is maintainable. As Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (7) Chittaranjan Mahota v. Anil Kumar Chakraborty reported in 1985(1) CHN 222 and 231 held as follows :–– “Moreover, in a later decision of the Supreme Court in (8) Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 , it has been held that in case of statutory bodies, there is no personal element whatsoever because of their impersonnel character. This principle which is applicable to statutory bodies will, in our opinion, also apply to a corporation, a Co-operative society, a government company or an Education Institution which is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and comprehended in the expression ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.” The Supreme Court in the case of Prathama Bank v. Vijoy Kumar Goel decided that the Regional Rural Bank is an instrumentality of the State and hence covered by Article 12 an amenable to Part III of the Constitution. Mr. Banerji argued that in the decision cited on behalf of the Bank reported in AIR 1976 SC 888 (supra) it was held that before an institution can be a statutory body it must be created by or under the statute and owes its existence to a statute. This must be the primary thing which has got to be established. According to the learned Advocate the Bank in question cannot carry on business without obtaining licence from the Reverse Bank of India. 6. The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submitted that the moment a society is registered under Section 23 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 it becomes a body corporate which means a statutory body and as such the Bank is also a statutory body. 6. The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submitted that the moment a society is registered under Section 23 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 it becomes a body corporate which means a statutory body and as such the Bank is also a statutory body. Further under Section 2(7) of the Act of 1983 a ‘central co-operative bank’ has the same meaning as in the Reserve Bank of India, 1934; under Section 2(24) ‘financing bank’ includes central co-operative bank; and under Section 2(31) ‘officer’ includes a government officer deputed by the State Government or the Registrar under Section 28 of the said Act. Under Section 8 of the W. B. Co-operative Societies Act, 1883 every officer of a co-operative society shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 21 of the Act of 1983 the amalgamation of any central co-operative bank with any other central co-operative bank or with the State Co-operative Bank is possible only with the permission of the State Government. There are series of Sections such as Sections 30; 33; 37; 48; and 49 of the Act of 1983 which make the position crystal clear that the Registrar has the power to dissolve the board and appoint administrator, the Government could nominate members of the Board, the Government could constitute one or more cadres of services of managers, assistant managers and other employees. It is obligatory on the part of the Co-operative Society to appoint employees and officers as sanctioned by the Registrar; and to issue directives to the society. The entire Chapter XIII is devoted to the special provisions for the Central Co-operative Bank. The above argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner goes a long way to establish that the respondent Bank is a statutory authority. 7. From Section 2(i) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 the ‘co-operative banks’ shall have the meanings assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 56 of the Act of 1949 in Part V deals with the application of the said Act to the Co-operative Societies and this part was inserted by the Banking Laws (Application to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965 effective from 1st March, 1966. Section 56 of the Act of 1949 in Part V deals with the application of the said Act to the Co-operative Societies and this part was inserted by the Banking Laws (Application to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965 effective from 1st March, 1966. Section 5(a) of the Act of 1965 provides that the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 would override the bye-laws of the Co-operative Societies and thus it is clear that the Co-operative Bank cannot have any bye-laws in contradiction with the Banking Regulation Act and as such the respondent-Bank is a statutory body. A further reading of Part V would show that the respondent-Bank is completely guided and controlled by the Statute. From the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as amended by the Banking Laws (Application to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965 it is clear that the carrying of banking business itself by the M/s Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. respondent No. 4, is totally controlled by the above two Acts. Moreover, under the Banking Regulation Act the said Co-operative Bank has been granted licence by the Reserve Bank of India to carry out banking business otherwise the said Bank would not have been in a position to carry out its banking business and could not have a separate existence of its own. A communication dated 20th August, 1966 issuing the licence to the Bank is question by the Deputy Chief Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, reads as follows :–– “In exercise of the powers conferred on the Reserve Bank of India by Section 22(i) read with Section 56(o) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. is hereby granted a licence to carry on banking business in India.” The very foundation of carrying out the banking business to the respondent No. 4 is a basis of the above quoted licence dated 20th August, 1966 under the authority of the Reserve Bank of India. 8. It need not be said that while carrying on the banking business the respondent-Bank deals with general public and its function is a public function though the learned Advocate of the respondent-Bank had some reservation on this point. 8. It need not be said that while carrying on the banking business the respondent-Bank deals with general public and its function is a public function though the learned Advocate of the respondent-Bank had some reservation on this point. It is submitted that the decision in AIR 1977 SC 112 (supra) is not an authority so far this matter is concerned because the said decision is not on the point whether a writ lies against a co-operative society or not and the case was decided in totally a different point and no decision was taken in the said Supreme Court case as regards the Co-operative Societies. 9. I considered the arguments put forward by the learned Advocates of the respondent-Bank and the writ petitioner, respectively, on the maintainability of the writ petitioner. From the discussions made hereinbefore I am firmly of the opinion that the Court must agree with the submission of Mr. Banerji. I accordingly hold that M/s. Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. comes within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such the writ application is maintainable. The respondent-Bank comes under the direct control and supervision of the Reserve Bank of India. 10. As the matter was heard preliminary on the point of maintainability of the writ petition and no argument was advanced by either side on the main grievance of the writ petitioner regarding his transfer order dated 15th October, 1985 from Branch Accountant (Officiating) at Dhaniakhali to Supervisor (Officiating) at Champadanga, the matter is left open to be adjudicated by the appropriate Bench. 11. Let this matter be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing. Let xerox copy of this judgment be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities.