Ajeet Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4386 Chatt

                                     1


                                                                   NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Writ Appeal No. 114 of 2021


1.   Ajeet Verma, S/o Shri S.K. Verma, aged about 45 years, Proprietor
     Apurva Medical Agency, Medical Complex, Behind Ajeet Hotel,
     Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2.   Sachanand Tirthani, S/o Shri Arjun Lal Tirthani, aged about 51
     years, Partner Asha Agency, Medical Complex, Behind Ajeet Hotel,
     Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of
     Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
     Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2.   Registrar, Firms and Societies, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District
     Raipur (C.G.)

3.   Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Composite Building,
     Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4.   Secretary, Zila Aushadhi Vikreta Sangh, Office at DCDA Bhawan,
     Medical Complex, Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
     (Registration No. 122201814678 registered on 23-08-2018).

                                                        ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.

For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

11.07.2022

Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also

heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing

for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Aman Sharma, learned counsel,

appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1539 of 2021,

dismissing the writ petition on the ground that it has raised disputed

question of facts and that the Court could not go into a roving enquiry to

find out the membership of the Zila Aushadhi Vikereta Sangh (for short,

'the Sangh').

3. In the writ petition, it is stated that the Sangh was registered on

23.08.2018 and in the by-laws, which is approved by respondent No. 3,

provisions have been made for enrolling members, eligibility of the

members etc. By-laws also provide that the tenure of the management

committee would be for a period of 3 years, which is extendable by

maximum period of 6 months.

4. The proximate cause for filing the writ petition was a notice dated

03.03.2021 by which election to the Sangh was proposed to be held on

04.04.2021.

5. In the writ petition, it is stated that receipt book Nos. 30, 41 and 42

were missing and members, who had taken membership in Sl.Nos. 1726

to 1750, Sl.Nos. 2001 to 2025 and Sl.Nos. 2026 to 2050, were asked to

submit their membership by 10.03.2021 to enable them to cast their votes

and the aforesaid fact goes to show that voter list is not complete. It is

also pleaded that preliminary voter list had not been published and the

membership is also sought to be granted without the approval of the

management committee. It is further pleaded that the process initiated

for holding the election is illegal and the same cannot be sustained.

6. In the reply-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4, it is stated

that the Sangh is not covered under the definition of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India and as such, no writ lies against the Sangh. It is also

pleaded that the Sangh has not been impleaded as respondent and

respondent No. 4, Secretary of the Sangh alone could not have been

sued in the writ petition. It is also stated that requisite steps had been

taken in accordance with law for holding the election. It is further stated

that the petitioners No. 1 & 2 had submitted their nomination for the post

of Organization Secretary and Secretary, respectively.

7. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed, it is stated by the petitioners that the

respondent No. 4 may not be covered under Article 12 of the Constitution

of India, but petition has been filed not only against respondent No. 4, but

against respondents No. 2 & 3 also and therefore, the writ petition is

maintainable.

8. Mr. Pandey has submitted that the petitioners had filed a

representation before the respondent No.2, but the same was not

considered by him. He has drawn our attention to Annexure P/9 in this

context.

9. A perusal of the representation would go to show that the same was

submitted on 12.03.2021, whereas the writ petition was filed on

04.03.2021.

10. The whole grievance is articulated against the Sangh. The Sangh is

not a party respondent and only the Secretary of the Sangh has been

made a respondent. The cause of action for filing the writ petition has

entirely arisen because of issuance of the election notice issued by the

Sangh, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the writ

petition itself is not maintainable. That apart, as observed by the learned

Single Judge, the petition involves disputed question of facts.

11. In that view of the matter, we find no good reason to interfere with

the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed. We, however, hasten to add that we have expressed no

opinion on merits of the case. The petitioners may seek remedy in

accordance with law, if so advised.

12. No cost.

                           Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                  (Arup Kumar Goswami)                  (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                       Chief Justice                           Judge


Brijmohan