Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 568 (JHR)

Chainpur Vyapar Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-08-14

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by Chainpur Vyapar Mandal and Bihar State Co-operative Society against Notification No. 547 dated 12th July, 2001, whereby and whereunder, one Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, the then Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Lac Marketing Federation Limited, BISCOLAMF for short was transferred to joint Headquarters and 4th respondent Jitendra Kuer, Principal, Cooperative Training Center. Ranchi, has been given additional charge of Managing Director, BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. The impugned order has been issued by the State of Jharkhand. 2. The case was heard on 18th July, 2001 and notice was issued on 4th respondent. The State of Bihar was imp leaded as 5th respondent and the counsel for the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar were asked to file counter- affidavit. Operation of the impugned notification dated 12th July, 2001 was stayed. The 4th respondent on appearance, filed a petition for vacating the stay, granted vide order dated 18th July, 2001, at Flag-B. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents No, 1 to 4. No separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar. The case was heard on merit. 3. The 4th respondent has taken specific plea relating to maintainability of the writ petition, at the instance of the petitioners. According to the counsel for the 4th respondent, Chainpur Vyapar Mandal-Ist petitioner is merely a member of BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. The 2nd petitioner Bihar State Cooperative Society is an ambiguous name, given by Director Shiv Prasad Gupta. The Director Shiv Prasad Gupta has not been authorised by the BISCOLAMF to file any writ petition before any Court of law. It was submitted that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable. 4. Counsel for the 4th respondent further submitted that the interim order dated 18th July, 2001 stood vacated on completion of fortnight period under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, as the order was passed exparte without hearing the 4th respondent. Subsequently after service of copy on the counsel for the petitioners, the petition for vacating stay was filed on 20th July, 2001, but no order was passed thereon. 5. Counsel for the petitioners raised jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand to pass any order, appointing/posting the Managing Director of BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. Subsequently after service of copy on the counsel for the petitioners, the petition for vacating stay was filed on 20th July, 2001, but no order was passed thereon. 5. Counsel for the petitioners raised jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand to pass any order, appointing/posting the Managing Director of BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. Reliance was placed on bye-laws of BISCOLAMF, wherein, under Clause 24, the power to appoint Managing Director has been vested with the State Government. It was submitted that after re-organisation of State, though the BISCOLAMF fell within the territorial area of the State of Jharkhand, bar for all purposes, the State Government, which is the State of Bihar, remained the appointing authority of the Managing Director, the bye-laws having not been amended. Reliance was also placed on Section 95 of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, wherein, stipulation has been made for Co- operative Societies to function immediately after re-organisation of States. 6. It is not necessary to discuss or decide the larger issue as to whether the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand is the appointing authority of the Managing Director, BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. 7. The petitioners have failed to show as to how the Chainpur Vyapar Mandal affected in the matter of appointment/posting of Managing Director of BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. It has not been disputed that the BISCOLAMF has not delegated any power nor any such power has been delegated under bye-laws to one of the Directors like Shiv Prasad Gupta to contest any case or to move before a Court of law on behalf of BISCOLAMF. Ranchi. In the aforesaid background, the second petitioner also failed to make out a case as to how it affected. 8. From the impugned order, contained in notification dated 12th July. 2001 it will be evident that an interim arrangement has been made. The 4th respondents has been merely given additional charge of the post of Managing Director, BISCOLAMF, Ranchi, which can not be construed to be an appointment in terms with Clause 24 of the bye-laws. 9. The interim order, passed by this. Court on 18th July, 2001 also stood vacated since 5th of August. 2001. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notification dated 12th July, 2001 that too, at the instance of the present petitioners. 11. 9. The interim order, passed by this. Court on 18th July, 2001 also stood vacated since 5th of August. 2001. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notification dated 12th July, 2001 that too, at the instance of the present petitioners. 11. However, the respondents are advised to fill up the post of Managing Director, BISCOLAMF, Ranchi, on regular basis instead of continuing it by interim arrangement. If necessary, the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand can resolve their dispute relating to owner of appointment. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. 13. Writ petition dismissed.