G.C. Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner was work-ing as the Secretary of the Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited, Begamabad Modinagar respondent No. 2 on February 4. 1969, the respondent No. 1. the U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh Limited. Lucknow, which is a federation of Co-operative Societies and of which respondent No. 2 is a member, passed on order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service from September 30. 1969, on his attaining the age of 55 years. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability, of the writ petition on the ground that no writ can issue to respondent No. 1 which is a private body. The preliminary objection is well founded. By this writ petition the petitioner has sought the quashing of the order of compulsory retirement as well as a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining respondent No. I from taking any action against the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Cane Cooperative Service Rules, which makes provision for compulsory retirement. The writ is sought against respondent No. & which is a Co-operative Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 and now deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in Narasimhan v. Chicacole Co-operative Central Bank, (1959) 1 Lab LJ 554 (Andh Pra):--
'Writ which is available to am aggrieved party could not be issued to private bodies or organisation like companies or co-operative societies. It could be issued only to inferior Courts, tribunals, and bodies entrusted with powers by the law of the land to affect the right of parties. Hence an order passed by a co-operative society dispensing with the services of one of its employee could not be challenged in a writ proceeding on the ground that such order was passed in violation of the bye-laws framed by the Society.'
In Sohan Lal T. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529 the Supreme Court has held that normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against ft private individual and that such an order is made against a person directing him to do some particular thing, speci-fied in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a public duty. In Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. Dy. Custodian. AIR 1966 SC 334 the Supreme Court observed :--
'..... a writ of mandamus maybe granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their jurisdiction.'
Again, In Praga Tools Corpn. v. Imanual, AIR 1969 SC 1306 the Supreme Court held:--
'Therefore, the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming it a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom it is sought: An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is. however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body .....
The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus, nor was there in its workmen any corresponding legal right for enforcement of any such statutory or public duty.'
It is thus clear that normally mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty.
3. In the present case respondent No. 1 against whom the writ is sought is a Co-operative Society, which is a private body. There is no allegation by the petitioner that any public duty is cast upon this society and the writ is not sought in respect of any such public duty. The main ground upon which the writ is sought is that Rule 11 on the basis of which the impugned order was passed is illegal and, therefore, the impugned order is without any basis. This cannot be said to be in violation of any public duty imposed upon the Co-operative Society by any statute. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner cannot claim a writ of mandamus or a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus against respondent No. 1. It is equally clear that, in the present case, no writ of certioarari lies because such a writ lies only against orders of public authorities acting quasi judicially. I am. therefore, of opinion that the writ petition is incompetent.
4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.