Santosh Kumar Shrivastava S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4742 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh Kumar Shrivastava S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                           ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 3312 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SANTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI
                                 JAMUNAPRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AGE 56 YEARS
                                 THROUGH PRAVANDHAK PRATHMIK KRASHI
                                 SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT PEEKLON
                                 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    CHANDRAHAS SHARMA S/O SHRI KRISHNA
                                 SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, THROUGH
                                 PRAVANDHAK     PRATHMIK    KRASHI   SAKH
                                 SAHKARI    SANSTHA MARYADIT      PEEKLON
                                 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SANJEEV    KUMAR    DUBEY     S/O    SHRI
                                 PREMNARAYAN DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                                 OCCUPATION     -MANAGER     PRAVANDHAK
                                 PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA
                                 MARYADIT    PEEKLON   DISTRICT    VIDISHA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH),

                           4.    NARAYAN SINGH S/O SHRI DHOLAN SINGH,
                                 AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION -MANAGER
                                 PRAVANDHAK     PRATHMIK    KRASHI   SAKH
                                 SAHKARI    SANSTHA MARYADIT      PEEKLON
                                 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    UMASHANKAR      CHOUBEY     S/O     SHRI
                                 SUKHNANDAN CHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 58
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION -MANAGER PRATHMIK
                                 KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT
                                 PEEKLON   DISTRICT   VIDISHA    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           6.    PREMNARAYAN SAHU S/O SHRI PREETAM LAL
                                 SAHU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 M A N A G E PRAVANDHAK PRATHMIK KRASHI
                                 SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT PEEKLON
                                 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    PRAMOD KUMAR RAJPUT S/O SHRI OMKAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 22-02-2024
12:20:50
                                                        2
                                 SINGH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 M AN AGER PRAVANDHAK PRATHMIK KRASHI
                                 SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT PEEKLON
                                 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           8.    HALKU SINGH RAJPUT S/O SHRI HUKUM SINGH
                                 RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 M AN AGER PRAVANDHAK PRATHMIK KRASHI
                                 SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT PEEKLON
                                 DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI KOMAL CHAND - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRAMUKH SAHKARITA VIBHAG, VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COMMISSIONER SAHKARIYA VIBHAG BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    UP AAYUKT SAHKARITA VIDISHA DISTRICT
                                 VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    PRASASAK     SAHKARIYA VIDISHA             DISTRICT
                                 VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

^^7-1 ;gfd] ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls izkFkZuk djrs gS fd jsLiksaMsaV dzekad &3 }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vusDtj ih&1 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA 7-2 ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ;kfpdkdrkZ dks tks Hkh mfpr lgk;rk U;k; fgr esa fnyk;k tkuk mfpr le>ssa fnyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA^^

2. From the relief it appears prima facie that matter is to be adjudicated before appropriate authority as per Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1960")

3. After arguing for sometime and on expressing reservation in entertaining the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. However, learned counsel for the petitioners raised anxiety that limitation prescribed to avail remedy as per Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 is one month and while prosecuting this case, delay has been caused.

4. Considering the arguments of petitioners, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy as per law.

5. Needless to say that petitioners intend to avail right to access justice as per statutory provisions and therefore, delay, if any, caused in prosecuting the case be considered in the light of proviso (3) of Sections 55(2) and 65(3) of the Act of 1960 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad Tamrakar Vs. M.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. and others, 2004 RN 93.

6. Disposed of accordingly.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Anil*