Chattisgarh High Court
Rupsingh Dewangan vs Sukhchand Dewangan on 16 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 446 of 2021
1. Rupsingh Dewangan S/o Liladhar Dewangan, Aged About 52 Years
President Mahavir Bunkar Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Korguda
Registration No. 2146, Korguda Tahsil Doudilohara District Balod
Chhattisgarh
2. Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, S/o Bihari Ram Dewangan, R/o Village
Korguda, Tahsil Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh
3. Redlal Dewangan, S/o Kashi Ram Dewangan Aged About 45 Years
R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod
Chhattisgarh
4. Anokh Ram Dewangan S/o Ramchand, Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Korguda, Tahsil Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod
Chhattisgarh
5. Naval Chand S/o Gokul Ram Dewangan Aged About 45 Years
(Member of Board Director) R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil
Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh
6. Pabhu Ram, S/o Devsing Dewangan Aged About 63 Years
(Member of Board of Director) R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil
Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh
7. Smt. Kalyani Bai, W/o Rajkumar Dewangan Aged About 45 Years
(Member of Board of Director) R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil
Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh
8. Smt. Purnima, W/o Naval Chand Dewangan Aged About 43 Years
(Member of Board Director) R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil
Doudilohara, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Sukhchand Dewangan S/o Manna Ram Dewangan, Aged About 55
Years Caste Costa R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil Doundilohara P.S.
And District Balod Chhattisgarh
2. Deman Lal, S/o Bharat Lal Dewangan Aged About 40 Years Caste
Costa R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil Doundilohara, P.S. And District
Balod Chhattisgarh
3. Chetan Lal, S/o Shri Kartik Ram Dewangan, Aged About 55 Years
Caste Costa R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil Doundilohara, P.S. And
District Balod Chhattisgarh
2
4. Radhe Lal Dewangan, S/o Bisouha Ram Dewangan, Aged About
45 Years Caste Costa R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil Doundilohara,
P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh
5. Sudama, S/o Bolu Ram Dewangan, Aged About 55 Years Caste
Costa R/o Village Korguda, Tahsil Doundilohara, P.S. And District
Balod Chhattisgarh
6. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative,
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
7. Registrar, Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies, Indravati Bhawan,
Block-B Third Flour, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
8. Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Balod, District Balod
Chhattisgarh
9. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society, Co-Operative Society
Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Ms. K. Radhika, Advocate
For Respondents No.6 to 9 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
16.08.2022
Heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard
Ms. K. Radhika, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5
and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing
for respondents No.6 to 9.
2. Respondents No.5 to 12 in the writ petition are the appellants in this
appeal, which is preferred against an order dated 24.11.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4746 of 2021.
3. Mr. R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
though the appellants were party respondents, the writ petition came to
be allowed without issuing any notice to the present appellants, and
therefore, on this ground alone, the order of the learned Single Judge is
liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice.
4. Ms. K. Radhika, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1
to 5 / writ petitioners submits that recourse to filing of the writ petition was
taken in view of the fact that the interim order dated 28.11.2020 passed
by respondent No.9 was not implemented by the present appellants
without any justification only on the ground that the revision petition
preferred by them was pending consideration, and therefore, no prejudice
is caused to the appellants in view of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge directing the appellants to comply with the order dated
28.11.2020.
5. The writ petitioners were expelled from Mahavir Bunkar Sahkari
Samiti. It appears that against the order of expulsion, an appeal was filed
under Section 19-C (1-A) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 (for short 'Act of 1960') by the writ petitioners. An interim order of
status quo was passed on 28.11.2020 on an application filed under
Section 67(1) of the Act of 1960. Direction was also issued to the effect
that the writ petitioners be allowed to continue as temporary members.
6. The aforesaid order was challenged by the present appellants by
way of a revision on 13.12.2020.
7. In the appeal before this Court, nothing has been indicated as to
what has transpired after the revision was filed on 13.12.2020, although
this appeal came to be filed almost one year later, i.e., 09.12.2021.
8. It appears that no interim order in the revision was passed staying
the operation of the order dated 28.11.2020.
9. Though it is a fact that the impugned order assailed in this appeal
was passed ex parte without notice to the present appellants, we are of
the considered opinion that no prejudice is caused to the appellants as
they were obliged to comply with the directions as contained in the order
dated 28.11.2020 passed by respondent No.9.
10. Taking that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal, and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
11. However, respondent No.7, before whom the revision filed at the
instance of the appellants is pending, is directed to dispose of the
revision petition on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation made
by the learned Single Judge or by this Court within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to the
parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
