Decided on September 21,2005

S M Khankhoje Appellant
Registrar Co Operative Csocieties Respondents


L.C.BHADOO, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-5-2004 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, whereby learned Registrar exercising revisional power under Section 78 of the Chhattisgarh co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960) set aside the order dated 8-8-2002 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, exercising power under Section 53 (1) of the Act, 1960 superceding "Lokmanya Housing Co-operative Societies Ltd." Raipur.
(2.) BRIEF facts, as set out in the petition, leading to filing of this writ petition are that a Society known as "Lokmanya Sahkari Greh Nirman Samiti Maryadit", Raipur (for short 'the Society) was constituted under the provisions of the Act, 1960 for the purpose of providing plots and constructed houses to its members. Same was registered under the provisions of the Act of 1960 on 4-12-1982. The management of the Society vests in a Managing Committee/Board of Directors and the body was elected from time to time. The last body was constituted by way of an election in which respondent No.4 was elected as Adhyaksha, respondent No.5 Anil Tope was elected as Up-Adhyaksha, respondents No. 6 to 9 were elected as Directors and respondents No.10 to 12 were elected as members of the Committee. As borne out from the record, certain complaints were made against the managing Committee on. 17-1-2002 and thereupon the Co-operative Department called upon the Society to explain about the demand of Rs. 17,000/- and the Society was restrained from collecting the said amount, against which Writ Petition No.696/2002 was filed on 4-4-2002. Thereafter, on 7-5-2002 Executive Engineer, Public Works Department was appointed to assess cost of the flats. He submitted report whereupon a show cause notice under Section 53(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to the Managing Committee on 27-7-2002 and they were asked to submit their reply within 7 days to which some of the Directors filed their reply in between 28th to 30th July 2002. A Writ Petition No. 1573/2002 was filed challenging the said show cause notice. However, in the meantime, the Deputy Registrar while exercising the power under Section 53(1) of the Act, 1960 passed order dated 8-8-2002 superceding the Society and Mr. J.P. Mishra, Co-operative Inspector, was appointed as Officer-in-charge of the Samiti. The petitioner in these two writ petitions filed an application for withdrawal of writ petitions on the ground that order under challenge has been withdrawn by the Registrar. Therefore, these two writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6-7-2004. However, before that, the Registrar while exercising suo motu revisional powers under the amended provisions of Section 78 of the Act, 1960 set aside the order dated 8-8-2002 passed by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 5-5-2004 and the same has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he is a member of the Society, and the impugned order has been passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in an arbitrary and illegal manner, without any jurisdiction and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The said order suffers from the malafide, abuse and misuse of the statutory power. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents in which preliminary objection has been raised about maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved therefore, he is not entitled to file the writ petition. He has filed this writ petition merely at the instance of Mr. J.P. Mishra, Officer-in-charge appointed by the Deputy Registrar. It has further been mentioned that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was wholly perverse, illegal and arbitrary. The Registrar has righdy exercised suo motu revisional power under Section 78 of the Act, 1960, therefore, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 12.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.