Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 168 (PAT)

Ramadhar Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-06

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the State raises a preliminary objection that in view of the pendency of C.W.J.C. No. 6613 of 1998 the present petition is not maintainable. To counter this submission learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said petition has nothing to do with the present dispute because in the earlier petition the petitioner has challenged his untimely retirement from the service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from very perusal of the order dated 19.3.2001, passed in Revision Case no. 32 of 2001 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, it would clearly appear that the Order sans reasonings shows utter and absolute non-application of mind. He submits that the authority is required to pass a reasoned and understandable order and if that is not done by the authority such an order cannot be allowed to stand. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that the order passed by the Registrar in his revisional jurisdiction is perfectly valid and even otherwise the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 48(8) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. To this submission (earned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the revision petition has been finally dismissed, a reference cannot be made by the Registrar. 5. I have heard the parties. 6. Section 48 of the Act relates to the dispute, it provides the nature of the disputes and the powers of the authorities to deciqe such dispute. Sub-section 6 of Section 48 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision given in dispute, within three months from the date of such decision may appeal to the Registrar. There is no dispute before me that the appellate order can be challenged before the Registrar in a duly constituted revision. If a revision is heard and finally decided by the Registrar, in the considered opinion of this Court, the chapter, for this court, comes to an ehd and he would have no jurisdiction to make a reference under sub-section 8 of Section 48 of the Act. 7. Sub Section 8 of Section 48 provides, that the Registrar may where it appars to him advisable either on an application or Oh his own motion state a case and refer it to the District Judge for decision, and the decision of the District Judge shall be final. 8. 7. Sub Section 8 of Section 48 provides, that the Registrar may where it appars to him advisable either on an application or Oh his own motion state a case and refer it to the District Judge for decision, and the decision of the District Judge shall be final. 8. The Registrar while exercising his jurisdiction under sub-section 8 is obliged to record a finding that he considers advisable to refer the matter to the District Judge for the decision of the District Judge. But in a case where the Registrar does not consider it advisable to refer the matter to the District Judge and proposes to decide the matter under his own hands, then after a final decision, he would have no power under sub-section 8 of Section 48 to make a reference to the District Judge for his decision. 9. A final order by the Registrar dismissing the revision would mean that he does not consider the case worth reference or fit for decision by the District Judge. Reverting back to the merits of the order passed in the revision, suffice it to say that the order in fact is cryptic, cavalier and sans reasons and facts. It in fact does not say anything. When an authority passes an order it is obliged to record some summary of the facts and the reasons which persuade the authority to come to a final conclusion. On perusal of an order like present, the appellate revisional or even the Writ Court would always beat a loss to understand as to what were the facts, what were the arguments raised and what persuaded the authority to dismiss the case. Slip-shod order is never the requirement of the legal system and orders like present would even stand on worse footing. 10. An order must be intelligible, descriptive, clear on (acts and law and on its own strength should show that the authority passing the order had applied its mind to the facts of the case, and, after appreciating arguments so raised has come to a particular conclusion. To say simply that the arguments were considered and the matter has no merits, in fact would be a bad order in the eyes of law. 11. The order passed by the Registrar deserves to and is accordingly quashed. 12. The said revision case no. To say simply that the arguments were considered and the matter has no merits, in fact would be a bad order in the eyes of law. 11. The order passed by the Registrar deserves to and is accordingly quashed. 12. The said revision case no. 32 of 2001 shall be restored back by the Registrar to its original number. The Registrar shall give proper notice of hearing to the parties. After hearing the parties, the Registrar shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.