Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 371 (ALL)

CHANDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1998-04-01

M.KATJU, S.L.SARAF

body1998
M. KATJU AND S. I. SARAF, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vinit Saran learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri H. R. Misra for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Murlidhar and Sri V. C. Tripathi for respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) THE petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 26. 7. 1997 and 20. 1. 1998. ( 3 ) THE facts of this case are that the petitioner claimed to be the chairman of the Committee of Management of the U. P. Co-operative federation which is a State Level Apex Co-operative Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 26. 7. 1997 against which he filed a Writ Petition No. 25346 of 1997 chandra Pal Singh and Committee of Management v. State of U. P. and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 6. 8. 1997 copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition. Subsequently it appears that the petitioner filed a representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order and that representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20. 1. 1998 hence this writ petition. ( 4 ) A perusal of the order dated 6. 8. 1997 of this Court shown that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. S. T. A. Tribunal, 1987 (13) ALR 35 (SC (Sum)and in Avnish Nagra v. Navadaya Vidyalaya, 1997 (2) SCC 534 para 13 that if a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition then a second writ petition for the same relief is barred. ( 5 ) SRI Vinit Saran learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the above mentioned rulings do not apply as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20. 1. 1998 which is the order rejecting the representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order. In our opinion, the order dated 20. 1. 1998 has only affirmed the earlier suspension order dated 26. 7. 1997 and hence the submission of Sri Vinit Saran is not tenable, and this second petition is not maintainable. 1. 1998 which is the order rejecting the representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order. In our opinion, the order dated 20. 1. 1998 has only affirmed the earlier suspension order dated 26. 7. 1997 and hence the submission of Sri Vinit Saran is not tenable, and this second petition is not maintainable. ( 6 ) SRI Saran then has sought to challenge the deletion of the second proviso to Section 35 (2) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act by Amending act No. 1 of 1997. Prior to this amendment, this second proviso to Section 35 (2) stated that if proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 35 could not be completed within six months then it will be deemed to have been dropped and the suspended Committee of Management shall be reinstated. Shri Vinit saran challenged the deletion of the second proviso to Section 35 (2) on the ground that now there is no time limit for continuing the suspension and hence there is arbitrariness. We cannot accept his contention because it is settled law that if no time is fixed for doing something it is implicit that it shall be done within a reasonable time, vide Regional Provident Fund v. M/s. K. T. Rolling, AIR 1995 SC 943 para 4. Hence we uphold the constitutional validity of Amending Act No. 1 of 1997. Moreover it is always open to a person to approach this Court for a direction that the proceeding be completed expeditiously. We have also been informed by learned Additional Advocate general that nine members of the Committee of Management had approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2805 of 1997, Anil Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others, against the impugned suspension order, and this petition is still pending. In our opinion, this amounts to bench hopping which cannot be appreciated. ( 7 ) ON the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the enquiry against Committee of Management must be completed within three months from today positively, and the petitioner and the other members of the committee of management shall co-operative with the enquiry and shall not seek adjournments. Photo copies of any documents required by the petitioner shall be supplied to him within 10 days of his demanding the same. The petitioner will be given opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. Photo copies of any documents required by the petitioner shall be supplied to him within 10 days of his demanding the same. The petitioner will be given opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .