Sushil Kumar vs Registrar Co-Operative ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3049 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2840 of 2023


Sushil Kumar                                       ...Petitioner

                                Versus

Registrar Co-operative Societies
Uttarakhand, Miyawala, Dehradun
and others.                                   ...Respondents


Present:-
            Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Devendra Bohra, Standing Counsel for the
            State/respondent no.1.
            Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, Advocate for the respondent
            nos.2 and 3.

                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of

certiorari quashing the impugned order

dated 30.04.2022 (contained as annexure

no. 7) passed by respondent no.1 being

arbitrary and illegal.

(ii) Issue a writ or order in the nature of

certiorari quashing the impugned

resolution dated 30.06.2022 (contained as

annexure no.11) & order dated

01.07.2022 (contained as annexure no.12)

passed by respondent no.3 and 2

respectively being arbitrary, illegal and

being passed in violation of Principles of

Natural Justice.

(iii) Issue any other order or direction which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and

proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the writ petition in

favour of the Petitioners and against the

respondents."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. As soon as the matter was taken up, learned

State counsel would submit that the petitioner has an

alternate relief by way of filing an appeal before the

Cooperative Tribunal under Section 98 (d) of the

Uttarakhand Co-Operative Societies Act, 2003 ("the

Act").

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that earlier the petitioner had filed an appeal

under Section 98 of the Act. But, one of the members of

the Tribunal is the same person who had issued show

cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued

that the petitioner had to withdraw the appeal and

preferred the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner may still file appeal before

the Tribunal, but he would submit that in such

eventuality, the interim relief application should find

disposal with promptitude within a period of one

month.

6. It is admitted at Bar that the Coram of the

Tribunal consists of two. If one of the members of the

tribunal had issued any notice, in the instant matter to

the petitioner, the other two persons, including the

chairperson of the Tribunal may very well hear the

appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that instant

petition should not be entertained and the petitioner

may be directed to seek his remedy before the Tribunal

under Section 98 of the Act.

7. The petition is dismissed with the liberty to

the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 98 of the

Act.

8. The Court requests the Tribunal to proceed

with the matter and decide the interim relief application

at the earliest opportunity.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.10.2023 Jitendra