Gujarat High Court
Bhupendrasinh Chhatrasinh Solanki vs The Director (Sugar) on 9 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1055/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1055 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9351 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1055 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1059 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8875 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1059 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8875 of 2025
=============================================
BHUPENDRASINH CHHATRASINH SOLANKI & ORS.
Versus
THE DIRECTOR (SUGAR) & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR.B. S. PATEL, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR UMANG H
OZA(2440) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.B.S. Patel,
for the appellants and perused the record, we may note that
both the writ petitions, decided vide judgment and order
dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, were
primarily for the relief of quashing of the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1055/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
23.04.2025 passed by the Director (Sugar), Secretariat,
Gandhinagar, namely respondent No.1 before the writ court,
authorizing the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Sugar Branch, Surat, namely the respondent No.2 therein to
initiate inquiry under Section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act' 1961").
2. It seems that while challenging the order of initiation of
inquiry under Section 93 (1) of the Act' 1961, the petitioners
have also challenged the show cause notice dated 03.05.2025
issued by the respondent No.2 namely the Authorized officer.
The proceedings under Section 93 (1) has been initiated on an
inquiry report dated 28.11.2024 submitted by the competent
officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 86 of the
Act' 1961. There is no challenge to the said inquiry report.
3. Sub-section (1) of Section 93 provides that on
submission of an inquiry report under Section 86, the
Registrar, if satisfied, on the basis of the said report, may
initiate proceeding under Section 93, to investigate the
conduct of such person(s) imputed in the inquiry report after
framing charges and giving reasonable opportunity of
hearing. Thus, a perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 93
indicates that the person(s) against whom inquiry is initiated,
will have reasonable opportunity of hearing before the
Registrar concerned, for the instant case, the District
Registrar authorized by respondent No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1055/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
4. A perusal of the judgment impugned indicates that the
learned Single Judge has taken exception only to the
observations made by the respondent No.1, namely the
Director (Sugar), in the order entrusting inquiry to
respondent No.2 under Section 93 (1) of the Act' 1961, by
observing that there was no occasion for the Registrar /
Director (Sugar) to make any observations on the merits of
the inquiry report, while authorizing a subordinate officer to
hold inquiry under Section 93 (1), inasmuch as, the inquiry
entrusted to the Authorized officer would be a mere empty
formality and the whole exercise would become meaningless,
if observations in the order entrusting inquiry are allowed to
stand.
5. Considering various arguments raised before him, the
learned Single Judge has reached at the conclusion that the
order impugned of authorizing another officer to hold inquiry
under Section 93, being administrative in nature, the remedy
of appeal would not be available. The learned Single Judge
also deprecated the practice of issuing show cause notice and
holding pre-inquiry by respondent No.1 at the administrative
stage. It was observed that there was no occasion for the
respondent No.1 to issue a showcause notice prior to holding
of the inquiry under Section 93 while authorizing an officer to
hold such inquiry.
6. However, while saying so, leaving it open for the
Authorized officer to conduct inquiry in accordance with
Section 93 of the Act' 1961 it was observed that all
contentions made by the petitioners before the Writ Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1055/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
would be open to be raised before the authorized officer in the
inquiry and that the authorized officer shall consider all the
contentions of the petitioners in an independent way strictly
in accordance with law.
7. Taking note of the above, finding that at the stage of
inquiry under Section 93 of the Act' 1996, the petitioners are
at liberty to raise all contentions before the Authorized officer,
we do not find any good ground to interfere.
8. Moreover, pertinent is to note that against any order
passed under Section 93, alternative statutory remedy would
be available to the petitioners under the Act' 1961.
9. For the above, the appeals stand dismissed. Pending civil
applications stand disposed of.
10. It is further clarified that any of the observations made
by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned or the
observations made hereinabove, will not come in the way of
the petitioners. The Authorized officer is required to make an
independent inquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions
of Section 93 (1) of the Act' 1961.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
