Chattisgarh High Court
Kuber Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti ... vs Office Of Deputy Registrar ... on 26 November, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(C) No. 4729 of 2021
Kuber Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (Through President), C-295, First
Floor, Rohinipuram, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Office of Deputy Registrar (Through - Deputy Registrar) Cooperative
Societies, First Floor, Vivekanand Complex, Vivekanand Nagar, Pension
Bada, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Block-3, 2 nd and 3rd Floor, Indrawati
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For State-Respondents : Mr. Amrito Das, Additional A.G. with
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
26/11/2021
1. The petitioner is before this Court against the show cause notice dated
09.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), issued by the respondent No.1.
2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that show cause notice (Annexure P-1) has been issued
making allegation of financial irregularities against the petitioner to show
cause as to why the liquidation proceeding should not be imitated under
Section 69 (2) of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 1960').
3. It is submitted that in the issuance of show cause notice, the procedure
as required under Section 59 of the Act, 1960 has not been followed.
The ingredients of Section 69 (1) of the Act, 1960 are not present at all
as there was no enquiry made under Section 59 and no inspection was
made under Section 60 of the Act, 1960 and neither there is
representation of 3/4 members of the society. Therefore, the action
initiated is illegal. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Division
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Panna Multipurpose
Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Bhopal & Ors., reported in 1965 MPLJ 968. It is prayed that the interim
relief be granted.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and the submissions made
in this respect. It is submitted that the proceeding for liquidation of the
petitioner society has been suo-motu initiated under Section 69 (2) of
the Act, 1960, which is not dependent upon the provision under Section
69 (1) of the Act, 1960, therefore, there is no requirement that there
should be any enquiry, inspection or representation by not less than 3/4
members of the of the society. The petitioner has replied to show cause
notice, which shows the submission to the proceeding initiated. Final
order has been passed and liquidator has been appointed. Therefore,
the proceeding, which has been initiated, has been completed. It is
submitted that the petitioner has remedy available to file an appeal
under Section 78 of the Act, 1960. Copy of the order dated 24.11.2021
has been presented for perusal of this Court. It is submitted that the
grant of interim relief in such case would amount to grant of final relief.
Relying on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Muslim
Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, reported in I.L.R. 1990 KAR 3705. It is submitted that the
Registrar has the authority under Section 69 (2) of the Act to suo-motu
initiate proceeding of liquidation of the society. Reliance has also been
placed on the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 264 of 2021
between Sushil Kumar Agrawal & Anr. Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.,
decided on 09.09.2021 and the judgment of Single Bench of this Court
in W.P.(C) No.2071 of 2011 between Galib Memorial Education
Soceity Vs. State of C.G. & Ors., decided on 26.07.2018. Hence, the
prayer for interim relief be rejected.
5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that
Section 69 (2) of the Act, 1960 does not empower Registrar to appoint
liquidator. It is submitted that the petition has been brought on the
ground that the whole procedure drawn by the respondent No.1 is in
clear violation of the Act, 1960, therefore, the interim protection be
granted to the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
7. Section 78 of the Act, 1960 provides for remedy of filing appeal against
such order passed, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is empowered to
exercise the powers of Civil Court under Section 77.-B of the Act, 1960.
Therefore, the petitioner has the remedy available to file appeal against
the order dated 24.11.2021 and make prayer for grant of interim relief.
8. The appointment of the liquidator has been ordered by the respondent
No.1 by order dated 24.11.2021, under the provisions of Section 70 (1)
of the Act, 1960. The liquidator has authority to exercise the provisions
under Section 70 of the Act, 1960. Hence, this Court is of the view that
for the reasons that there is statutory remedy available to the petitioner,
there is no reason to keep this petition pending. Accordingly, this petition
is disposed off at the motion stage. The petitioner is granted opportunity
to file appeal under Section 78 of the Act, 1960, before the State
Cooperative Tribunal. Such an appeal be filed within a time limit of 15
day from today. Until the filing of appeal and on the decision of the
application for grant of interim relief, by the learned Tribunal, in case the
order dated 24.11.2021 has not been acted upon, the same shall remain
stayed for a period of 21 days form today.
9. With these observations, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Balram
