Patna High Court
Pankaj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable because the cooperative society is neither a "State" under Article 12 nor an "authority" under Article 226.
Summary
Pankaj Kumar filed a civil writ petition seeking the quashing of a notice inviting tender, payment of Rs.10,69,016 and continuation of work under a contract with the Bihar State Milk Cooperative Federation Ltd. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the cooperative society, contended that the cooperative does not qualify as a "State" under Article 12 nor as an "authority" under Article 226, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable. The Court relied on its earlier Full Bench decision in Vidya Bhushan Singh Abhai v. Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producer’s Federation Ltd. and a Special Bench decision in The Organizer, Dehri C.D. & C.M. Union Ltd. v. State of Bihar, both holding that writs are not maintainable against a cooperative unless it is deemed a State or authority. Applying those precedents, the Court held that the cooperative society is not an instrumentality of the State and dismissed the writ petition. The petition was disposed with liberty to the petitioner to seek any other appropriate remedy under law.
Issues considered
- Whether a cooperative society registered under the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act, 1935, is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether such a cooperative society qualifies as an "authority" under Article 226 for the purpose of issuing a writ.
- Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 12
- Article 226
- cooperative society
- state instrumentality
- public procurement
- non‑maintainability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3541 of 2025
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar, male, aged about 34 years, Son of Sri Kumar Satyendra Prasad
Sinha, resident of House No. K- 119, P.C.Colony, Hanuman Nagar, P.O. -
Lohiya Nagar, P.S. Patrakarnagar, Patna- 800020.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Purnea.
2. Bihar State Milk Cooperative Federation Limited (registered under Bihar
and Orissa Cooperative Society Act) through its Managing Director, Bihar,
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800001.
3. The Secretary, Bihar State Milk Cooperative Federation Limited, Bihar
Veterinary College, Patna - 800001.
4. The General Manager, Bihar State Milk Cooperative Federation Limited,
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800001.
5. The Manager Engineer, Bihar State Milk Cooperative Federation Limited,
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800001.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate
For Respondent nos2 &3 : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel-01
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
7 10-02-2026 In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following relief(s):-
“(i) For quashing the notice inviting tender
bearing NIT No.:Comfed:Engg:664:Voll-II:929
dated 28.01.2025 issued through the General
Manager, Bihar State Milk Cooperative
Federation Limited (Respondent No.4) by which
same work order has been issued by the
respondent authorities whereas fixed a date
Patna High Court CWJC No.3541 of 2025(7) dt.10-02-2026
2/4
‘24.02.2025 on Monday at about 3.30’ for filing
of tender document.
(ii) For issuance of a direction that the balance
amount must be paid to the petitioner of
Rs.10,69,016/- alongwith retention 5% amount
for which bill has been submitted.
(iii) For issuance of a direction to the
respondent no.2 to allow the petitioner to
continue the rest 48% work till completion of
the work as per Agreement which is pending due
to non-payment of the outstanding bill amount
of the petitioner.
(iv) For any other order or orders to which the
petitioner may be entitled to.”
2. Admittedly, the present writ application has been
filed against a co-operative society registered under the Bihar
Co-operative Societies Act, 1935.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the respondent co-operative society does not fall within the
definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and, therefore, cannot be treated as an instrumentality of
the State. On this ground, it is submitted that the present writ
application is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed a
reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
Vidya Bhushan Singh Abhai vs. The The Bihar State Co-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3541 of 2025(7) dt.10-02-2026
3/4
operative Milk Producer's Federation Ltd., passed in CWJC
No.3110 of 2004, dated 08.09.2009, reported in 2010 (4) PLJR
26 (FB), wherein the following observation has been made:-
“Heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate for
the respondents.
This petition has been filed against a Co-
operative Society. Even the learned Single
Judge under the order of reference has raised
question regarding the legality of a decision of a
single Judge of this Court, we are not feel
inclined to deal with that question. Now, law is
well settled that writ is not maintainable against
a Co-Operative Society unless such Co-
Operative Society is considered as an
“authority” within the meaning of Article 226
or within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution.
In such view of the matter, the writ itself is not
maintainable. Since we hold that writ petition is
not maintainable, it is obvious that it would be
open to the petitioner to pursue any remedy
available under law. It goes without saying that
since the matter had remained pending in the
High Court, if there is any question of
limitation, it would be open to the petitioner to
file an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.”
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has further
Patna High Court CWJC No.3541 of 2025(7) dt.10-02-2026
4/4
relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of this Court in
The Organizer, Dehri C.D. & C.M. Union Limited vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 695, wherein
a similar view has been taken.
6. In view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble
Full Bench as well as the Special Bench of this Court, we find
that the present writ application is not maintainable.
7. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to avail
an appropriate remedy available under the Law.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Ibrar/-
U
Checking your session…