Anil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard the parties.2. mr. dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mr. modi, appearing for the state-respondents and mr. mehta, appearing for the university-respondents submitted that this case is now covered by the judgment rendered by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of state of bihar and ors. v. bihar rajya m.s.e.s.k.k. reported in 2005 (2) jcr 126 (sc) : 2005 (1) jljr sc 215 and now t the university is to act as per the said judgment of the hon'ble supreme court.3. mr. dubey submitted that petitioner's name appears in annexure-iii and iv a of the report submitted before the supreme court relating to adarsh college at rajdhanwar (a constituent unit of binowa bhave university, giridih) mr. modi appearing for the state respondents and mr. mehta, appearing for the university respondents submitted that it is to be seen by the university as to how to deal with the case of the petitioner as per the said report, and it is to take a decision in' accordance with the said judgment.4. mr. dubey, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the time granted by the supreme court for taking action has expired.5. in the circumstances, regarding the petitioner, the university is directed to act as per the said judgment of the hon'ble supreme court, if not already acted, within two months from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.6. with these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. no costs.