JUDGMENT : Petitioner is a retired Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited (first respondent). He seeks for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the first respondent in not paying the retirement benefits to the petitioner as illegal and unjust and to pass consequential direction to the first respondent to pay arrears of salary and retirement benefits to the petitioner including provident fund, encashment of Earned Leave, and Gratuity etc., together with interest at 18% per annum. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was paid salary of Rs. 12,500/- per month from the time of his appointment in 1980 till 2003. The salary was subsequently reduced to Rs. 3,000/- per month in 2003. In 2005, the salary of the petitioner was increased to Rs. 7,000/- per month. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2008 with a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Retirement benefits had not been paid to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 25.8.2008. An order was passed by the first respondent ordering that all the monies due to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner. However, the pension and other retirement benefits had not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had no alternative except to approach the second and third respondents. The second respondent passed orders in RC.No. 706/08-C addressed to the first respondent herein directing the first respondent to pay arrears of salary, gratuity, provident fund and other benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to with the prior approval of the Executive Committee in accordance with the bye laws. The petitioner consequently seeks for the reliefs prayed for. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent contended that as the first respondent is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, a writ petition will not lie against the first respondent-Society. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon SMT. BHARATHI VS. THE REGISTRAT OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE . In that case it was observed on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE V. LAKSHMI NARAIN ( AIR 1976 SC 888 ) that no direction can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Cooperative Society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In P. BHASKARAM VS. In that case it was observed on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE V. LAKSHMI NARAIN ( AIR 1976 SC 888 ) that no direction can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Cooperative Society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In P. BHASKARAM VS. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL (CO-OPERATION) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM, a Full Bench considered the issue more elaborately and held at paragraphs 29 and 30 as under: “29. The Cooperative Societies are not created by the Cooperative Societies Act and they are not statutory bodies. They are only functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Act. These institutions would have legal existence even if the Cooperative Societies Act was not in force. Moreover, the Government have no shares in the Cooperative Societies. There is no deep and pervasive State control. The management of the societies does not vest in the Government or in the representatives of the Government. The management is under the effective Control of a committee elected by the members of the societies. The statutory regulation or restriction in the functioning of the societies is not “an imprint of State under Art.12.” 30. We, therefore, hold that no writ will lie against a Co-operative Society governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and these writ petitions will have to be dismissed on that score.” Thus it is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that Co-operative Societies are not created under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the “Act”) and that they are not instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief under the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court and that the petitioner may invoke Section 61 of the Act. Under Section 61 of the Act, any dispute between the Society and its employees shall be decided by a Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Consequently there appears to be a clear ban for the petitioner to approach either a Civil Court or invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not wish to go into the merits of the case for the reason that it is found that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the Cooperative Societies. I do not wish to go into the merits of the case for the reason that it is found that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the Cooperative Societies. I, therefore, see no merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merit as there is no jurisdiction for this Court to entertain this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. Petitioner is indeed at liberty to invoke Section 61 of the Act or any other appropriate relief to which he is otherwise entitled to. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.