SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should this Court change the direction of law, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, entertaining present writ petition against a show cause notice, thereby restraining the respondent authorities from exercising their statutory powers under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short 'Act of 1984') and rules made thereunder, is the short but important question of law that falls for consideration of this Court.

(2.) Instant writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure P-17), issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra, for removal from the post of Director/Chairman of the Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kurukshetra, (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-Bank') and also the order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P-18), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension, having found incurred the disqualification under Rule 27 (b) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 (for short 'Rules of 1989') and byelaws of the respondent-Bank, for membership of the Committee. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that when confronted by this Court that present writ petition would not be maintainable, it being only against a show cause notice and even if an order is passed by the competent authority, after considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, said order shall also be appealable under the relevant provisions of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and the statutory rules made thereunder, learned counsel for the petitioner persistently argued, contending that writ petition is very much maintainable. He argued the case at length narrating unnecessary, irrelevant and detailed background of the case, with a view to support his contentions about the maintainability of the writ petition. Referring to the averments taken in the writ petition particularly in para Nos. 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 (E), he has tried to make it a case of political vendetta, alleging malafide against the General Manager of the respondent-Bank, saying that she was enjoying the patronage of present political Government. He further submits that there was no violation of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989. He also refers to the order dated 23.06.2016 (Annexure P-11) in CWP No.12769 of 2016 and order dated 14.07.2016 in CWP No.13686 of 2016 (Annexure P-14), passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner, regarding the issue of no confidence motion and illegally convening of an emergency meeting of Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank, with a view to show that unwarranted political pressure was being exercised, through Chief Minister's window, which makes it a case of political rivalry.