JUDGMENT : M.I. ARUN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3123 of 2022, petitioner No.1 therein has preferred Writ Appeal No.280 of 2025 and petitioner Nos.2 to 7 therein have preferred Writ Appeal No.234 of 2025. 2. Respondent No.3 is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 ('the Act, 1960' for short) and is formed for the welfare of the persons belonging to 'Balija Community'. Respondent No.2, who is the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by way of a letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition) has directed respondent No.3-Society to consider the request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership of the Society. 3. As the same has not been acted upon by respondent No.3, the appellants/petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.3123 of 2022 with the following prayers: "(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to enforce its direction issued under the communication dated 03-01-2022 to Respondent No.3. (b) Direct the Respondent No.3 to act in consonance with direction issued under communication dated 03-01-2022 by the Respondent No.2 and to provide membership to Petitioners and others who are eligible to become members as per rule No.3 of memorandum of Association of Respondent No.3 or in alternative to direct the Respondent No.2 to enroll Petitioners and other similarly situated persons as members of Respondent No.3. (c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice." 4. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the term of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society has already come to an end, has dismissed the writ petition and has held that it is for the new Managing Committee to consider the request of the petitioners to enroll them as members of the Society and has further directed respondent No.2 to appoint necessary Election Officer and ensure that elections are held to the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Against the said order, the present writ appeals are filed. 5. Against the said order, the present writ appeals are filed. 5. The case of the appellants/petitioners is that they belong to Balija community and respondent No.3 is formed to uplift the Balija community and any person who has completed the age of 18 years belonging to the Balija community can become members and they are eligible to become members of respondent No.3-Society. It is submitted that though the Governing Council has completed its term as on 30.09.2021 itself and the elections were due, the elections have not been conducted yet for various reasons and the same Governing Council continues to administer the Society and as per the bye-laws of the Society, there is no impediment for the Society to enroll the petitioners and similarly situated persons as members of the Society and deliberately, the present Governing Council members have refused to consider the request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons with the sole intention of returning to power in the ensuing elections also. 6. It is submitted that the inaction on part of respondent No.3-Society, resulted in petitioners approaching respondent No.2-the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies and upon verification of the bye-laws of the Society and the law governing the subject concerned, respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.3-Society to consider the request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons in accordance with law. 7. However, respondent No.3-Society has not acted upon the same. It is further submitted that as per the bye-laws of the Society, the Managing Committee once elected continues to be in office till a new Managing Committee takes over after elections and is required to perform all the acts that they are required. It is also submitted that in the instant case the Managing Committee has not lost its legitimacy and has not been under suppression. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating this particular fact and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the request of the appellants/petitioners can be considered only by the new Managing Committee. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the contentions of the appellants/petitioners and justify the impugned letter issued by respondent No.2. 9. Per contra, respondent Nos.3 and 4 submit that the petitioners are seeking to enforce a private right and the writ petition could not have been entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the contentions of the appellants/petitioners and justify the impugned letter issued by respondent No.2. 9. Per contra, respondent Nos.3 and 4 submit that the petitioners are seeking to enforce a private right and the writ petition could not have been entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They further submit that the dispute pertains to the membership of the petitioners and this Court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the term of the Managing Committee has already come to an end, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered, and hence, the direction issued by respondent No.2 cannot be implemented. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has issued the impugned letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition) without any authority of law. 10. The questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are as under: (i) Whether this Court can entertain these writ appeals? (ii) Whether respondent No.2 could have issued the impugned letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition)? (iii) Given the facts and circumstances of the case, whether respondent No.3-Society can be directed to consider the request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership of the Society and whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding it otherwise? 11. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition, in spite of respondent No.3 raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition at the first instance. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 741 in paragraphs 26 and 27 has held as under: "26. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Amalapuram and another vs. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 A.P. 171 was considering the question whether a writ petition lay against a cooperative society and if it did, in what circumstances. After examining various decisions and treatises on the subject, it was stated that even if a society could not be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty which an employee is entitled to enforce against the society. After examining various decisions and treatises on the subject, it was stated that even if a society could not be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty which an employee is entitled to enforce against the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a "person" or an "authority", within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution. What is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court is to enforce such statutory public duty. 27. In view of the fact that control of the State Government on the appellant is all-pervasive and the employees had statutory protection and therefore the appellant being an authority or even instrumentality of the State, would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it may not be necessary to examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from the language of Article 226, there does not appear to exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of the article, it is not necessary for us to rely on the decision of the English courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person, does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including, in appropriate cases, any Government. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including, in appropriate cases, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367, unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the legislature of the Dominion of India."Person" under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The Constitution in not a statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. The High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is an established procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. The High Court does not act like a proverbial "bull in a china shop" in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226." 13. A party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. The High Court does not act like a proverbial "bull in a china shop" in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226." 13. Thus, under the present circumstances, where respondent No.3-Society is constituted for the welfare of the entire Balija community and any person who has attained majority, subject to other disqualifications mentioned in the bye-laws of the Society, can become a member of the said Society and given the facts that the activities of the Society are governed by the Act, 1960 and what is sought to be prayed in the writ petition and the writ appeals is implementation of a direction issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 being a Government Officer, it has to be held that the writ petition and writ appeals are maintainable. 14. The membership of a person to a Society registered under the Act, 1960 is essentially one that of a contract between the Society and the members on the one hand and inter se members on the other hand. However, the same is governed by the bye-laws of the Society and the Managing Committee of the Society is required to act in accordance with the bye-laws and if a person eligible for membership makes an application, the same will have to be considered in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and the law applicable. 15. The elected representatives to the Governing Council of the Society as per the bye-laws shall be elected once in three years. However, the bye-laws states they shall continue in office and perform their duties till the next Governing Council is elected. In other words, as per the bye-laws of the Society, even after a lapse of three years there is a provision for extension of the term of the Governing Council under certain circumstances. 16. Annexure-B to the writ petition is the proceedings of the Annual General Body meeting of respondent No.3-Society and it reveals that the term of the Governing Council was extended by six more months. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that during the said extended term, the Governing Council functioned with restricted powers. 16. Annexure-B to the writ petition is the proceedings of the Annual General Body meeting of respondent No.3-Society and it reveals that the term of the Governing Council was extended by six more months. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that during the said extended term, the Governing Council functioned with restricted powers. Thereafter, it is seen that for various reasons including the reason of COVID, the election to respondent No.3-Society has not been conducted even today and the same Governing Council is functioning with full powers as per the bye-laws. 17. The documents also reveal that there have been complaints against functioning of respondent No.3-Society and the same have been made to respondent No.2-District Registrar of Co-operative Societies by the aggrieved members with a request to appoint an Administrator. It is also seen that respondent No.3-Society as a reply to the said complaint has submitted its justification to respondent No.2 and has contended that no illegality has taken place. 18. In the meanwhile, it is seen that the petitioners as well as several other persons have applied for membership to respondent No.3-Society and there has been inaction in respect of the said applications on the part of respondent No.3- Society. It has also been alleged that the present management with an ulterior motive of clinging on to power, though having the necessary powers under the bye-laws, has not considered the applications of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership. 19. Taking all these factors into consideration, respondent No.2 has written a letter to respondent No.3-Society to consider the applications of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership and thereafter conduct the necessary elections. 20. Given the aforementioned fact situation, in our opinion, respondent No.2 has not committed any illegality in issuing the impugned letter. 21. The impugned letter issued by respondent No.2 does not direct respondent No.3-Society to necessarily admit the petitioners and similarly situated persons to the membership of the Society. He has merely directed them to consider the request in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The decision is left to respondent No.3-Society whether to admit them to the membership or not. 22. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Governing Council of respondent No.3-Society has legitimacy to act on the request of the petitioners or not. 23. The decision is left to respondent No.3-Society whether to admit them to the membership or not. 22. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Governing Council of respondent No.3-Society has legitimacy to act on the request of the petitioners or not. 23. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that a 'No Confidence Motion' is moved against them by majority of the members which is pending consideration or that an Administrator or a Committee is appointed by the Registrar to manage only the day-to-day affairs of the Society or that the Governing Council of the Society is under suppression and they do not have power to enroll new members. Admittedly, the Governing Council of respondent No.3-Society is exercising all its powers under the bye-laws as on today. 24. The lis pertaining to validity of the Governing Council of respondent No.3 still functioning as on today is not before this Court and the same need not be answered. 25. As respondent No.3 has not shown any impediment in law or on facts that its functioning powers have been curtailed upon expiry of three years, it has to be construed that it is obliged to consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with its bye-laws. 26. The learned Single Judge erred in not taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and only on the ground that the original term of three years of the Governing Council had expired, has dismissed the writ petition. Thus, in our opinion, for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside. 27. Hence, the following order is passed. 28. Thus, in our opinion, for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside. 27. Hence, the following order is passed. 28. Writ Appeal Nos.280 of 2025 c/w 234 of 2025 are hereby allowed: (i) The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3123 of 2022 is hereby set aside; (ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership in accordance with the bye-laws, as directed by the impugned letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition), issued by respondent No.2-District Registrar of Co-operative Societies and admit such persons who are eligible for membership and thereafter conduct necessary elections to respondent No.3 Governing Council; (iii) The applications filed by the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership shall be considered within a period of four weeks from today and necessary voter list shall be prepared thereafter forthwith and the elections to respondent No.3 shall be conducted within three months thereafter; Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.