JUDGMENT : RAKESH SHARMA, J. 1. Since the common question of law and fact is involved in these writ petitions, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri D. K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Hardoi Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Hardoi, the employer. 3. The Petitioners of the above indicated writ petitions have assailed the orders of termination dated 17.4.2000, passed by the Secretary, Hardoi Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Hardoi, terminating the services of the Petitioners, employees. 4. This Court vide judgment and order dated 10.3.2006 had allowed the writ petitions and ordered for quashing the orders of termination of services of the Petitioners issued on 17.4.2000. Being aggrieved, the employer, Hardoi Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') had filed special appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to direct the Hon'ble single Judge to dispose of the matter in view of the observations made by the Division Bench. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 8.8.2006, passed by the Division Bench of this Court is quoted below : We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned single Judge. The judgment proceeds to indicate the ratio of the decisions that were relied upon for maintaining the writ petition. Apart from this the learned single Judge has neither discussed any material which could form the basis for arriving at the conclusions drawn nor any reason has been given for drawing the assumption that the writ petition was maintainable. In view of this we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge on this short ground. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10.3.2006 with a request to the learned single Judge to redetermine the aforesaid issue on the basis of any such material that might be necessary for drawing the aforesaid conclusion in accordance with the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that the Respondent employees whose services have been terminated are Class III employees and serious prejudice service shall be caused to them in the event the litigation is prolonged. Dr. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that the Respondent employees whose services have been terminated are Class III employees and serious prejudice service shall be caused to them in the event the litigation is prolonged. Dr. L. P. Misra, learned Counsel for the Appellant assures that he will not see any unnecessary adjournment and the matter can be disposed of at the convenience of the learned single Judge within the shortest possible time. Accordingly, we request the learned single Judge to dispose of the matter keeping in view the aforesaid facts as expeditiously as possible preferably within the time as suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties which can be convenient to the learned single Judge. Learned Counsel for the parties suggested that the matter be disposed of within a period of six weeks but this time period can be best ascertained by the learned single Judge and not by this Court. This appeal is allowed to that extent. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the matter apart from the question indicated hereinabove. All the three appeals are accordingly disposed of. 5. Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Bank has raised two preliminary objections on the very maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri Sanjay Kumar has submitted that Bank is a cooperative society, registered under the relevant provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and neither the State Government nor Central Government has any share in the Bank. It is not financed by the State Government or the Central Government. It is having its own private Committee of Management and there is no nomination of the State Government or the Central Government in its Board of Directors. There is no deep and pervasive control of the State or the Central Government or its authorities over day-to-day functioning and management of the Bank. The Bank has its own shareholders to elect the members of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the Chairman. The Board of Directors governs and controls the administration of the Bank and, therefore, the Bank cannot be defined as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Bank is not, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The Board of Directors governs and controls the administration of the Bank and, therefore, the Bank cannot be defined as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Bank is not, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Bank has placed reliance on the judgments in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4531 Supriya Basu and Others Vs. West Bengal Hsg. Board and Others, AIR 2005 SC 4187 Binny Ltd. and Another Vs. V. Sadasivan and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3202 Ram Singh v. Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1102 : 1997 AWC 217 ; Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and Ors. (1991) 2 UPLBEC 898: 1991 (2) AWC 1005 ; Radhey Shyam Rai v. State of U. P. and Ors. (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2549 ; Vijay Bihari Srivastava Vs. U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 1 and Gayatri De Vs. Mousumi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others, AIR 2004 SC 2271 in support of his submissions. 7. Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Bank has further submitted that the Bank is not under the purview of U. P. Institutional Service Board constituted by a notification dated 4.3.1972 u/s 122 of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. By merely having registered under the provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the Bank cannot be treated as a Nationalized Bank or as an instrumentality of the State. The writ petitions are not maintainable. Since the writ petitions are not maintainable, no other findings can be recorded by the Court by entering into the merits of the case. 8. Sri D. K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has strenuously argued that the Petitioners were appointed and working in the Bank. As per the Petitioners' learned Counsel, the Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. It can be defined as a Body Corporate as envisaged u/s 9 of the Act, 1965. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who is an officer of the State Government, has been vested with adequate powers to control the working of the Bank. It can be defined as a Body Corporate as envisaged u/s 9 of the Act, 1965. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who is an officer of the State Government, has been vested with adequate powers to control the working of the Bank. This Bank was established to undertake financial and banking business and provide services to the public at large. It is discharging public functions ; as such it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Sri D. K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions: 1. Jagveer Singh v. Chairman Cooperative Textiles Mills Ltd., 1999 (17) LCD 1105: 1999 (2) AWC 2.89 ; 2. Binny Ltd. and Another Vs. V. Sadasivan and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3202 3. Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2677 4. U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others, AIR 1999 SC 753 10. Sri D. K. Upadhyay has taken the Court to various paras of the judgments relied upon by him to demonstrate that the term 'authority' used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India must receive a liberal meaning unlike the terms under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 of the Constitution of India vests power on the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. This Court can very well issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to do or not to do a thing or to reinstate the Petitioners. Even a private body is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226, are therefore, not to be confined to the statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duties. The Bank in this case is discharging public duties to its customers and public at large. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is evident from the material on record that the present Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions contained in U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Admittedly, this Bank is not having any share of the State Government or the Central Government. It was established by private capital, investment of its shareholders. 12. It is evident from the material on record that the present Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions contained in U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Admittedly, this Bank is not having any share of the State Government or the Central Government. It was established by private capital, investment of its shareholders. The State Government or the Central Government or its authorities have no deep or pervasive control, financial or otherwise over the affairs of the Bank. The Bank is not financed by the State Government or the Central Government. 13. As far as its constitution is concerned, it has been brought on record that the Bank is managed by a private Committee of Management and there is no nominee of the State or the Central Government in its Board of Management. The State Government, Registrar, Cooperative Societies or other authorities of the Government, do not have any control over day-to-day functioning and the management of the Bank. The Bank is having its own shareholders. As per the scheme of administration, its own shareholders elect the members of the Board of Directors and the Chairman. The Board of Directors so elected governs and controls administration of the Bank. As far as banking business is concerned, it is carried out with checks and balances by the management. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies comes in the picture only for the purpose of registering the Bank as a Cooperative Society, which is a statutory requirement to formally recognize a Cooperative Society. The Bank's case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733 , where the employee was working as Branch Manager of the Federal Bank. The dismissal order was passed against the employee, which was assailed in the Supreme Court of India. The Bank's case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733 , where the employee was working as Branch Manager of the Federal Bank. The dismissal order was passed against the employee, which was assailed in the Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a private company carrying on business as a Scheduled Bank cannot be termed as carrying on statutory or public duty and it was therefore, held that any business or commercial activity, whether it may be banking, manufacturing units or related to any other kind of business generating resources, employment production and resulting in circulation of money which do have an impact on the economy of the country in general, cannot be classified as one falling in the category of those discharging duties or functions of a public nature. It was held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 could not have been invoked in that case. Similar views have been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad (supra). 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Federal Bank's case (supra), this Court may observe that the Bank is a private Bank, a Cooperative Society, standing at a different footing than a Nationalized Bank. The purpose of the Bank is to provide banking and financial services to its customers. The share capital was not contributed by the State or the Central Government nor it is financed by the State funds. The State or the Central Government has no role to play in the management and in day-to-day affairs of the Bank. The Board of Directors of the Bank is elected by the shareholders who invest private capital in the Bank. It was like a private organisation. The Cooperative Society is involved in the Banking business with a kind of enjoying monopoly. The Bank was not set up or established for building the economy of the State but it was established for its private shareholders' interest who were members of the Cooperative Society. 15. It was like a private organisation. The Cooperative Society is involved in the Banking business with a kind of enjoying monopoly. The Bank was not set up or established for building the economy of the State but it was established for its private shareholders' interest who were members of the Cooperative Society. 15. Taking into account the above factors, it is amply clear that the Bank cannot be defined as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not an authority nor exercising any statutory functions, duties against whose orders or actions, a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus could be issued. There is no deep pervasive control of the State or the Central Government over the financial or the administrative affairs of the Bank. 16. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petitions are not entertainable under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 17. The writ petitions are dismissed. It is, however, open for the Petitioners to approach any appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.