Rajasthan High Court
Bramhanand Sharma S/O Sh. Laxmi ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6835/2022
Bramhanand Sharma S/o Sh. Laxmi Prasad, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Opp. Higher Secondary School, Old Truck Union,
Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Co-
Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302006.
2. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan.
3. Pathik Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Shop No. 27,
Gulab Bag, Karauli, Through Vice President Smt. Rashmi
Sharma, W/o Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, Plot No. 3,
Nandpuri, Bais Godam, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
10/05/2022
The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the legality
and validity of the judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by the
Court of Hon'ble Co-operative Minister, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur whereby, a revision petition filed by the respondent no.3
against the order dated 20.11.2006 issued by the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has been allowed.
The facts in brief, necessary for disposal of the controversy
involved herein, are that against an order dated 20.11.2006
passed by the Registrar under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Co-
(2 of 4) [CW-6835/2022]
operative Societies Act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2001'), the
respondent no.3 preferred a writ petition no.1603/2007 which
came to be dismissed by this Court vide its order dated
10.04.2017 in view of availability of an alternative remedy of
appeal under Section 104 of the Act. While dismissing the writ
petition, it was observed that if the appeal is preferred within a
period of two weeks, it be treated within limitation and be
examined on merits. The respondent no.3, instead of preferring
the appeal, filed a revision petition under Section 107 of the Act of
2001 which has been allowed by the Court of Hon'ble Co-operative
Minister vide its judgment dated 22.04.2022, impugned herein.
Two fold submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner are that the revision petition filed by the respondent
no.3 was not maintainable as this Court has, vide its order dated
10.04.2017, granted the respondent no.3 a liberty to prefer an
appeal only under Section 104 and not a revision petition. His
another contention is that since the revision petition, which was
time barred in view of limitation prescribed under Section 107, did
not accompany an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it
was not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition
be allowed and the judgment impugned dated 22.04.2022 be
quashed and set aside.
Heard. Considered.
This Court has, vide its order dated 10.04.2017, while
dismissing the writ petition preferred by the respondent no.3
against the order of Registrar dated 20.11.2006 on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy, permitted it to file an appeal
under Section 104 which was required to be decided on merit if
(3 of 4) [CW-6835/2022]
preferred within two weeks from the date of order. The respondent
no.3, instead of filing the appeal, preferred a revision petition
under Section 107 of the Act of 2001. It was fairly admitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition against
the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Registrar under Section
55 of the Act was maintainable even without availing the remedy
of appeal. This Court notices that period of limitation for assailing
the order of the Registrar either by way of an appeal or by way of
a revision petition is same, i.e., 90 days. When requested, the
learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to
prejudice suffered by him on account of filing a revision petition
instead of an appeal except an assertion that liberty was granted
by this Court vide its order dated 10.04.2017 to the respondent
no.3 to prefer an appeal only and not a revision petition. True it is
that this Court granted the respondent no.3 a liberty to prefer an
appeal which was to be decided on merit if preferred within two
weeks from the date of order; but, without taking a conscious
decision to exclude the remedy of revision petition, therefore, in
view of admitted fact that the order of the Registrar could have
been assailed by way of a revision petition also without availing
the remedy of appeal and especially the fact that the petitioner
has failed to show any prejudice caused to him on account of the
revision petition filed against the order dated 20.11.2006 instead
of an appeal, this Court does not deem it just and proper to
interfere in the judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by the
competent authority under its revisional jurisdiction.
Contention of the learned counsel that the revision petition
was not maintainable is absence of an application under Section 5
(4 of 4) [CW-6835/2022]
of the Limitation Act, does not merit acceptance as it was filed
within the period of two weeks as directed by this Court vide its
order dated 10.04.2017.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
