Noparam vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14464 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16787/2022

Noparam S/o Shri Harji Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Chak No. - 3, Rjd, Post Sansardesar, District - Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Co-

Operative Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, 22 Godam, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Administrative Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan Co-

Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Saras Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. The Managing Director, Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

5. Banshi Lal S/o Kana Ram, resident of Gram & Post Sinjguru, Panchayat Samiti Nawa, District Bikaner

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Falgun Buch Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted Ms. Kamini Joshi Mr. J Gehlot Mr. KK Bhati

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

08/12/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved

with the order dated 10.10.2022 (Annex.-13) passed by the

respondent No.3 while exercising powers under Section 28(13) of

the Rajasthan Co-operative Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act of 2001').

(2 of 3) [CW-16787/2022]

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.5 has filed

an application under Section 28(13) of the Act of 2001 claiming

that the petitioner, who is at present holding the post of Chairman

of the Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited,

Bikaner was disqualified to be elected as member of the Board of

Director of Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh

Limited, Bikaner as he was having more than three children after

the cut-off date at the time of his election.

The said complaint has been contested by the petitioner and

the claim of the respondent No.5 that the petitioner was having

more than three children after the cut-off date is contradicted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties concerned at

length, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.3 has

passed the impugned order solely on the basis of birth certificate,

which as per the respondent No.3 is forged one. The respondent

No.3 has not taken into consideration the other documentary

evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner in his defence while

passing the impugned order.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have fairly

conceded that the respondent No.3 has not given any findings in

respect of documentary evidence filed by the petitioner in his

defence. Learned counsel for the respondents have also fairly

conceded that the matter may be remanded to the respondent

No.3 to pass a fresh decision after considering the evidence

produced by the parties concerned.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.10.2022

(Annex.-3) is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is

remanded to the respondent No.3 to pass a fresh decision on the

complaint filed by the respondent No.5 regarding disqualification

(3 of 3) [CW-16787/2022]

of the petitioner on account of having more than three children

after the cut-off date.

The respondent No.3 is directed to consider all the

documentary as well as the other evidence produced by the

parties concerned.

It will be open for the parties to furnish fresh evidence, if

any, in support of their respective claims. It is expected that the

respondent No.3 shall pass a speaking order in respect of each

admissible evidence produced by the parties. The respondent No.3

shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of

three months from the date of production of certified copy of this

order. It is also expected that the parties shall cooperate in the

matter.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J Surabhii/72-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)