Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2386 UK
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.461 OF 2021
01st AUGUST, 2022
Seema Rehman ......Petitioner
Vs.
Registrar Cooperative Societies
Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Presence:-
Shri Arvind Vashsitha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Hemant Singh
Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Shri Alok Mehra, learned counsel for respondent no.3-Bank.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the order/letter no. 1889/7/2021 dated
13.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3, namely Kurmanchal
Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. The petitioner also seeks a
direction quashing a part of the order dated 28.06.2021,
whereby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies/respondent
no.1 directed respondent no.3 to once again consider the
petitioner's representation /resignation. The petitioner
further seeks a direction to the respondents to re-instate
the petitioner in service, and to pay her back wages
alongwith other benefits including consequential seniority.
2. The order/letter No.1889/7/2021 dated
13.07.2021 is, in fact, the Resolution passed by the
respondent no.3-Bank in a meeting of its Board of Directors.
3. Respondent no.3 is not amenable to writ
jurisdiction of this Court, as already held by a Division
Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation between
the same parties in Writ Petition (S/B) No.510 of 2016
decided on 08.05.2019. Thus, the primary relief, sought by
the petitioner in the present petition, cannot be granted, as
no writ would lie against respondent no.3. The petitioner
accepted the order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and submitted herself to
the re-determination of the issue whether her resignation,
should or should not, be accepted by the Board of Directors
of respondent no.3-Co-operative Bank.
4. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the
petition in respect of the second relief sought in the writ
petition. We therefore, dismiss this writ petition leaving it
open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy against
respondent no.3 in other competent proceedings, as may be
available to her in law.
5. We make it clear that we have not examined the
merits of the petitioner's claim in the present petition.
6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of accordingly.
___________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 01st August, 2022 SK
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!