SARAT CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
SARAT CHANDRA PANDA
STATE OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
R.N.Misra, J. -
(1.) The Aska Central Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited, opposite party No. 3, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') is a society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 4 to 13 are members of its Committee of Management. The present Committee was formed on 9-1-1977. The Society has as its financing bank the Aska Central Co-operative Bank and as stated in para. 6 of the writ application, the Society is indebted to the Bank. The Committee of Management received a notice dated 14-2-1978 from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, opposite party No. 2, purporting to be under Section 32 (1) of the Act calling upon it to show cause why it may not be superseded by the Registrar in exercise of his powers under that section. Petitioner contends that as a condition precedent to the issue of notice under Section 32 (1) of the Act, the financing Bank had to be consulted as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the Act and, in the absence of consultation, the initiation of the proceeding is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed.
(2.) Opposite parties Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9 have appeared through different counsel and counsel for opposite parties Nos. 4 and 6 at the hearing support the petitioner's stand. The application is opposed by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 11 represented by learned Additional Government Advocate. A counter-affidavit on behalf of these contesting opposite parties has also been filed wherein it has not been disputed that there has been no consultation with the financing Bank before issue of the impugned notice and it has been maintained that such consultation at that stage is not warranted by law. It is further contended that the writ application is premature and since the final order of supersession is open to appeal and revision, alternate remedy is available and this Court should not examine the merit of the matter in view of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution.
(3.) There does not seem to be any force in the contention of the contesting opposite parties that alternate remedy is available against the final order, because the objection of the petitioner is that the proceeding itself is without jurisdiction as the basic precondition of consultation with the financing Bank has not been satisfied before initiation of the proceeding. The material question for consideration, therefore, is whether petitioner's contention is acceptable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.