Surendra Prasad Pandey vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Post ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16202 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Surendra Prasad Pandey vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Post ... on 8 May, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35516-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3580 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Pandey
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Post Ministry Of Communication , New Delhi And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Paltoo Ram Gupta,Durga Prasad
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 332/00462/2019 (Surender Prasad Pandey vs. Union of India and others).

3. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Tribunal against the U.P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Limited as it had issued a notice to the petitioner-applicant for payment of loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- for which he was the surety. The loan had been taken by late Om Prakash, but it has not been paid in entirety. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application on the ground that there is a remedy under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, as, the dispute prima facie is between a Member of the Cooperative Society and the Cooperative Society. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Member of the said Cooperative Society. The recovery orders were issued by the concerned authority of the Postal Department on the asking of the Secretary of the Cooperative Society which was an Employees' Cooperative Society dated 28.02.2015 as is evident from Annexure-4.

4. Counsel for the Union of India says that essentially it was not a service matter; rather a dispute arising out of loan transaction between Cooperative Society and its Members. The petitioner stood surety for one of the Members who had taken loan, therefore, the judgment and order of the Tribunal does not require interference.

5. We have perused Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Considering the nature of dispute it has rightly held that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. If there is any other remedy available, the same can also be availed, but, we see no cause for interference.

6. The writ petition is dismissed.

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 8.5.2024

Santosh/-