[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Shriwas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
1 WP-8899-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8899 of 2021
RAJESH SHRIWAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- GA for the respondents/State.
Shri Nirmal Sharma- Advocate for respondent no. 5.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29/11/2018 (Annexure P/1)
passed by M.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby, his appeal filed
before the Joint Registrar has been held to be not maintainable and is
directed to be returned to the petitioner for filing it before the appropriate
forum.
2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Salesman in respondent no.5/Society. On account of
certain allegations, he was terminated from service vide order dated
4/5/2016.
3. Challenging the action of termination of his services, the petitioner
raised a dispute under Section 55(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
(for short "Act of 1960") and filed it before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative
2 WP-8899-2021
Societies, Chambal Division, Morena. The Joint Registrar referred the
dispute to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morena for adjudication.
The dispute was adjudicated by the Deputy Registrar and by order dated
3/2/2017 (Annexure P/2), the same was answered against the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 78 of the Act of
1960 before the Joint Registrar, which came to be allowed vide order dated
28/12/2017 (Annexure P/3).
4. The Society then challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar
before the Tribunal. By impugned order dated 29/11/2018, the Tribunal has
allowed the appeal. Accepting the objections raised by the Society, the
appeal filed by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar has been held to be
not maintainable. The Joint Registrar has been directed to return the memo
of appeal to the petitioner enabling him to file it before the appropriate
forum. Challenging this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this
writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though the
dispute was initially submitted before the Joint Registrar, however, since the
same was referred to the Deputy Registrar for adjudication, the appeal
against the order passed by Deputy Registrar would be filed before the Joint
Registrar only. It is his submission that the Deputy Registrar being the
subordinate authority to that of Joint Registrar, the appeal was competent
under Section 78(1)(a) of the Act of 1960 before the Joint Registrar. Learned
counsel referred to the decision of Cooperative Tribunal rendered in the case
of Kailash Narayan Sharma Vs. M.P. Rajya Sahakari Printing Press, Parimit,
3 WP-8899-2021
Bhopal reported in 2008 RN 444 to say that the Tribunal itself in the said
case has held such an appeal to be maintainable. It is his submission that the
Tribunal was thus bound by the decision rendered in the case of Kalash
Naranay Sharma (supra) and could not have taken a contrary view.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and submitted that under Section 66(3) of the Act of 1960,
since the Deputy Registrar was a nominee of the Registrar, the order passed
by the Deputy Registrar shall be deemed to have been passed by the
Registrar only, and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable before the
Joint Registrar. He thus, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is
legal and valid and does not warrant any interference.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
8. The issue involved in the present case is no more res-integra. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Co-Operative Workers
Federation vs. M.P. Co-Operative Tribunal, reported in 2013(1) MP LJ 2 7,
has dealt with the same issue and held as under :-
"4. Answer to the issue which crops up for consideration lies in
the interpretation of section 66 of 1960 Act and more particularly
its sub-section (3) which creates a legal fiction. Section 66 of 1960
Act provides for:
66. Settlement of dispute. -- (1) The Registrar may, on receipt
of the reference of dispute under section 64 (or sub-section (2)
of section 55) decide the dispute himself, or transfer it for
disposal to a nominee or board of nominees to be appointed by
the Registrar.
(2) When a dispute is transferred under sub-section (1) for
disposal by a nominee or a board of nominees, the Registrar
may at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, withdraw
such dispute from such nominee or board of nominees and may
4 WP-8899-2021
decide the dispute himself or transfer it again to any other
nominee or board of nominees appointed by him for decision.
(3) The decision of a nominee or a board of nominees to whom
any dispute is transferred for decision under this section shall,
for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the decision of the
Registrar.
5. The dispute which the legislature has empowered the Registrar
to settle under sub-section (1) of the Act of 1960 either relates to
terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action
taken by a society against its employee/employees, i.e. disputes
arising between the Society and its employee under section 55(2)
or the dispute touching the constitution, management or business,
or the liquidation of the Society under section 64(1).
6. Besides the powers conferred on the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies to decide the above disputes, the legislature has further
empowered the Registrar vide sub-section (1) of section 66 to
even transfer such dispute to be decided by a nominee or Board of
nominee to be appointed by him.
7. Furthermore, in the eventuality as find mention under sub-
section (2) of section 66 having not occurred, an order passed by
the nominee or Board of nominee, as per sub-section (3) of section
66, would be deemed to be the decision by Registrar. What would
it mean; whether a nominee in the teeth of the fiction created by
sub-section (3) is reduced to a status of merely an 'agent' or a
"little more than an agent" as has been construed by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal seems to have lost sight of the aspect that the
conferment of power in Registrar, Co-operative Societies to
transfer the dispute to a nominee or Board of nominee is by the
legislature under section 66(1) and not by the State Government
which enjoys certain powers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of
1960 Act, which stipulates that, the officers appointed under sub-
section (1) of section 3 to assist the Registrar shall within such
areas as the State Government may specify, exercise such powers
and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar
by or under the Act, 1960 as the State Government, by Special or
general order direct.
9. Apparently, as borne out from section 66 that a nominee or
Board of nominee to whom the dispute is transferred for its
decision is not an appointee under section 3 of the Act. In that
5 WP-8899-2021
event, the Tribunal would have been to some extent justified in
holding such appointee as a subordinate of the Registrar. Or in
case a nominee is to be treated as an 'agent' or little more than
that, the act of his must further be qualified by an express
provision seeking ratification by Registrar.
10. The Scheme of section 66, however, does not suggest such
course. The Tribunal, therefore, is not justified in assessing the
exercise of power by Registrar of appointing a nominee as
conferred by section 66(1), on the touchstone of the provisions
contained under section 3 of 1960 Act.
11. As for legal fiction the law is trite that it is within the
competence of legislature to enact a deeming provision for the
purpose of assuring existence of a fact which does not, really exist
(please see Justice G.P. Singh's: Principles of Statutory
Interpretations, 13th Edition 2012: Chapter 5 Synopsis 5 at page
381).
12. In the case at hand a nominee by the Registrar to decide the
dispute referred to, since is deemed to be a Registrar as per sub-
section (3) of section 66 of 1960 Act, treating him merely as an
agent or little more than an agent would tantamount to re-legislate
which is impermissible in a judicial review.
13. Thus even when "outside the bounds of the legal fiction the
difference between the reality and the fiction may still persist in
the provision of the same Act, which creates the fiction....."
(Principles of Statutory Interpretation: (supra) at page 392), the
fiction when created is to be treated as real in the context such
fiction is created, as aptly observed by Lord Asquith who stated
in East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council,
(1951) 2 All ER 587 P. 589 (referred to as Note 22 Principles of
Statutory Interpretations (supra) page 383) that "If you are bidden
to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely,
unless prohibited from doing so also imagine as real the
consequence and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs
had in fact existed, much inevitably have flowed from or
accompanied it. The Statute says that you must imagine a certain
state of affairs, it does not say that having done so, you must cause
or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the
inevitably corollaries of that state of affair."
14. We further observe from the order passed by the Tribunal that
6 WP-8899-2021
the decision relied upon by Tribunal pertains to different
enactment interpreting provisions different than section 66 of 1960
Act. The law is settled that "The dictum stated in every judgment
should be applied with reference to the facts of the case as well as
its cumulative impact. Similarly, a statute should be construed
with reference to the context and its provisions to make a
consistent enactment i.e. ex viceribus actus". Offshore Holdings
Private Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC
139, paragraph 85.
15. This being the state of law regarding legal fiction, the present
case when examined from above point of view leaves no iota of
doubt that the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies who
decided the dispute under section 55(2) of 1960 Act as nominee of
the Registrar has to be treated as Registrar, when his order is put
to challenge in Appeal, which as per clause (b) of sub-section (1)
of section 78 of 1960 Act lie before the Tribunal.
16. In view whereof an appeal before Joint Registrar being not
tenable, the Tribunal was not justified in affirming the order by an
authority having no jurisdiction.
17. In the result the impugned order is quashed and the appeal
pending before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies is held to
be not tenable and, therefore, dismissed. The appellants, i.e.,
respondents herein would be at liberty to move proper forum
within thirty days from the date of communication of this order
and if an appeal is filed within said period the Tribunal shall
entertain the same on merit without being influenced by the order
passed herein."
9. Learned Tribunal in the impugned order has relied upon the
aforesaid decision of the Division Bench. Therefore, the contention of
petitioner's counsel that the Tribunal was bound by the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kailash Narayan Sharma
(supra) is not acceptable. The Tribunal was in fact bound by the Division
Bench decision of this Court.
10. In view of the legal proposition laid down by the Division Bench,
7 WP-8899-2021
the order passed by the Tribunal dated 29/11/2018 cannot be said to be
illegal or otherwise unsustainable in law. The order to this extent is affirmed.
However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has directed return of original
appeal with documents to the petitioner for presenting the same before the
appropriate forum. As directed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case,
said direction of Tribunal is modified and it is directed that the appeal filed
before the Joint Registrar by the petitioner shall be treated to have been
dismissed as not maintainable and the petitioner is given liberty to challenge
the order passed by the Deputy Registrar before the Tribunal within a period
of 30 days from today. If such an appeal is filed, the Tribunal shall deal with
it in accordance with law without going into the issue of limitation.
11. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
