Allahabad High Court
Uttar Bharat Urban Cooperative Bank ... vs Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Of ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17672
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2876 of 2025
Petitioner :- Uttar Bharat Urban Cooperative Bank Federation Ltd., Lko. Thru. Ceo. Mr. Anurag Shrivastava
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Of Cooperation, New Delhi And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Tushar Mittal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajkumar Singh, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Union of India.
Under challenge is the order dated 11.07.2019 whereby the respondent no. 3 has passed an order appointed a liquidator in terms of Section 89 (1) of the U.P. State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2002) and also considered the petitioner's society fit to be wound up.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is as under:-
(i) that no notice was ever served on the petitioner in so far as the winding up order is concerned.
(ii) that the ground upon which the respondent no. 3 has formed an opinion the petitioner not being a Multi State Cooperative Society is flawed.
(iii) It is urged that as soon as the petitioner became aware of the said order, he immediately filed an application under Section 86 (3) of the Act of 2002, however, the said application remained pending with the respondent no. 2 and no orders have been passed.
(iv) In the meantime, the liquidator who had been appointed, initially, did not take charge but subsequently some other liquidator was appointed who started correspondence with the petitioner and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 99 of the Act of 2002.
(v) It is submitted that by means of order dated 23.01.2025, the appeal has been dismissed as being not maintainable.
(vi) It is urged that even though a period of limitation may have been prescribed under the Act of 2002 but the fact remains that it was noticed in the order dated 11th July, 2019 that the notice was not served/could not be served on the petitioner and this aspect was sufficient to have considered the cause of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay. Moreso when the impugned order of 2019, merely mentioned that the notice of the proceedings were uploaded on the website but not the impugned order.
(vii) It is further submitted that it could be one thing as to whether the cause explained by the petitioner is sufficient or not but it was not open for the respondent no. 2 to have dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable. Not a single shred of reason has been incorporated in the order impugned dated 23.01.2025 which is per se non-speaking and non-reasoned and in such circumstances the said order cannot be sustained especially the original order dated 11th July, 2019 relating to winding up of the Society has adverse consequences and liable to be set aside.
Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the cause shown by the petitioner was not sufficient and despite the fact that an appeal was filed with much delay, it has not been explained that once the order of winding up was put on the website of the respondent-department, how the petitioner could explain its having no knowledge thereof. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the instant petition may not be entertained.
Having considered the rival submissions and from the perusal of the material on record including the order dated 22.01.2025 where the Appellate Authority has merely stated that any decision made under Section 99 of the Act of 2002 is appealable within a period of 60 days and hence, the appeal was not maintainable. Apparently, it is a completely non-reasoned order which does not even take note of the facts as pleaded by the petitioner including the fact that the petitioner had already made an application under Section 86 (3) of the Act of 2002 which was received by the respondent-department on 02nd June, 2023 and yet the same remained pending.
Even in the memo of appeal, a copy of which has been brought on record, as Annexure no. 12, detailed facts have been mentioned, however, the same has not been considered or adverted by the Appellate Authority concerned while passing the order impugned.
This Court is reminded of the decision of the Apex Court inCyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
12. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed: (All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at."
In the aforesaid circumstances, despite the opposition by the respondent, yet Sri Rajkumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India could not dispute the fact that the order dated 23.01.2025 is per se non-reasoned and non-speaking.
Considering the aforesaid fact that the order is non-speaking this Court is of the view that no gainful purpose will be served in either calling for a counter affidavit when the order itself is non-speaking, hence, it would be appropriate that the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 is set aside. The appeal of the petitioner shall stand restored with the Appellate Authority where the petitioner shall be entitled to move an application for interim relief, however, it is made clear that the Court while passing the instant order has not entered into the merits of the controversy and it will be open for the Appellate Authority to take a view after taking into consideration the material brought on record after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority shall inform the petitioner of the date fixed within two weeks from today and upon such communication, the petitioner will be entitled to file his application for interim relief. The Appellate Authority shall not consider the application for condonation of delay and if the delay is condoned then appropriate orders will be passed on the application for interim relief expediting and then the appeal can be decided on its own merits preferrably within a period of 8 weeks from the date, the date is fixed by the Appellate Authority.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.
Order Date :- 26.3.2025
Asheesh/-
