Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... on 31 March, 2022
D/L
Item No. 6
31.03.2022
KOLE
MAT 770 of 2020
With
IA No. CAN 2 of 2021
State of West Bengal & Ors.
-Vs.-
The Bantra Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Srijan Nayek,
Mrs. R. Maitra,
Mr. B. Das,
...for the appellant/State.
Mr. Ashit Kumar Chakraborty,
Mr. S. Mohan Ghosh
... for the respondent no. 1.
Mr. D. Ghose,
... for the respondent nos. 4 to 9.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
connected application are taken up for hearing together.
A judgment and order dated December 5, 2019,
whereby WP No. 17139 (W) of 2019 (The Bantra Co-
operative Bank Ltd.-vs.-The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
was disposed of, is the subject matter of challenge in this
appeal.
A Cooperative Housing Society by the name of
Madhya and Paschim Howrah Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd. was divided into two societies by an order dated April 1,
2005, passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Howrah. One of the societies retained the original
name and the other came to be known as Prayas Cooperative
Housing Society Limited (in short 'Prayas'). The original
society owed money to Bantra Cooperative Bank Limited (in
short 'the Bank'). It appears that part of the debt had been
repaid but not the entirety of it.
The Bank was aggrieved by division of the original
society into two societies as the entire dues of the Bank had
not been paid by the original society. The Bank challenged
the order of division by filing WP No. 11201(W) of 2006. By
an order dated April 19, 2010, the writ petition was allowed.
The order of division of the original society into two societies
was set aside and the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative
Societies was directed to pass an order afresh in the light of
the observations made in the order of the learned Single
Judge. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Registrar passed an
order dated June 7, 2012, the material portion whereof reads
as follows:-
"Now therefore, in terms of subsection 1 of
Section 22 of W.B.C.S. Act, 2006 and in
consideration of the foregoing paras, it is hereby
ordered that the final order of bifurcation of the
said society into two societies namely, 1) Madhya
and Paschim Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and 2)
Prayas Coop. Housing Society Ltd. shall take
effect on and from the date on which all the dues
to the creditor bank will be paid by the said
society".
Prayas applied for review of the order dated June 7,
2012 under Section 148(2)(a) of the West Bengal
Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. An order dated April 17,
2013 was passed on the said review application by the
concerned Authority whereby the order dated June 7, 2012
was modified. The material portion of the order dated April
17, 2013 reads as follows:-
"Therefore, assessing all the pros and cons upon
hearing and careful consideration of the whole
issue partial amendment of the Order No. 12718
dt. 7-6-12 issued by A.R.C.S. Howrah is done and
order shall be as under:
'Now therefore, in terms of subsection 1 of
Section 22 of W.B.C.S. Act, 2006 and in
consideration of the foregoing paras, it is
hereby ordered that the final order of
bifurcation of the said society into two
societies namely, 1) Madhya and Paschim
Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and 2) Prayas
Coop. Housing Society Ltd. shall take
immediate effect.
A.R.C.S. Howrah to issue certificate of
registration to the newly created societies
within 7 days from the date within copies
to all concerned.'
Order is passed in compliance of with the Order
dt. 21-11-12 of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.
23840(W) of 2012 read with Sec.4(56) of
W.B.C.S. Act 2006."
The order dated April 17, 2013 was challenged by the
Bank before the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal. By an
order dated July 16, 2019, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal
holding that it lacked jurisdiction.
The order passed on the review application by the
concerned Authority on April 17, 2013 and the order dated
July 16, 2019 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Bank's
appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, were both
challenged in the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge in the present proceedings.
After hearing the parties at length, the learned Single
Judge came to the conclusion that Prayas could not have
applied for review of the Assistant Registrar's order dated
June 7, 2012 since Prayas is stillborn. The order giving birth
to Prayas was set aside by a learned Judge of this court by an
order dated April 19, 2010. Hence, at the time when the
application was made purportedly on behalf of Prayas for
review of the Assistant Registrar's order, Prayas was not in
existence at all. The learned Single Judge observed that the
original Housing Society could have applied for review, but it
did not.
The learned Judge observed that in the fresh order
dated June 7, 2012, which the Assistant Registrar passed
pursuant to the learned Single Judge's order dated April 19,
2010, passed in WP 11201(W) of 2006, it is stated that
bifurcation of the original Housing Society into two housing
societies shall take effect on and from the date on which all
the dues of the Bank would stand liquidated. As on the date
when the review application was filed on behalf of Prayas,
the dues of the Bank were outstanding. Hence, Prayas was a
non-entity. The learned Judge rightly held that Prayas could
not have applied for review assuming that the order dated
April 17, 2013 is reviewable under the relevant provisions of
law. The learned Judge set aside the order dated April 17,
2013 and observed that the appellate order dated June 16,
2019 is, therefore, rendered irrelevant. Against such order
of the learned Single Judge the State has preferred this
appeal.
We have really not understood as to how the State is
aggrieved. The original society, which is the debtor, has not
come up in appeal. The State, however, says that it is its
duty to find out under what circumstances huge sums of
public money were advanced by the Bank to the Cooperative
Society. It says that to the best of its knowledge, the Bank
did not take any security for advancing such loan. The Bank
is not in a position to produce any agreement or other
documents in connection with the loan. The State smells rat.
The learned Counsel appearing for the State says that there
could have been a big scam in the matter.
If the State wants to unearth any alleged scam, it will
be at liberty to take whatever steps it is entitled to take in law
against the Bank. We do not put any fetter on the power of
the administration to make due investigation into the affairs
of the Bank in accordance with law.
However, we do not find any infirmity in the order
impugned in this appeal. The learned Judge rightly held that
the application for review was not maintainable since the
same had been made on behalf of a non-existing applicant.
Hence, the order passed on such application is also not
sustainable. We see no reason to interfere with the order
under appeal.
The appeal and the connected application are
disposed of accordingly.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
