Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 569 (PAT)

Narendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2003-05-13

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2003
Judgment 1. The present case has been filed for the purpose of challenging the vires of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. This matter was considered by the Court on 9 May, 2003 when upon certain submissions made the Court considered it appropriate that it be listed with the record of C.W.J.C. No. 12487 of 1996: Narendra Kumar & ano. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. Coincidently, Narendra Kumar the petitioner of the present petition happens to be the petitioner in the earlier petition. 3. Any order which is passed on merits of the case will start affecting the issues in C.W.J.C. No. 12487 of 1996. The earlier petitioner is not up for consideration before the High Court. 4. In the earlier petition, the Directors of the Nawada Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. resisted the payment of a certain amount held against them jointly or severally upon the passing of an order by the appellate authority in proceeding no. 7 of 1993 dated 24 August, 1996/29 August, 1996, Annexure 20 to this writ petition and Annexure 30 to 1996 petition. 5. The issue in the present petition is a situation which is being faced by the petitioner basically in politics. Elections to co-operative societies are in the process. But no member of a cooperative society can seek election as a delegate if he has a proceeding pending for clearance of a public debt. The petitioner calls it a surcharge proceeding. 6. With an order of the appellate authority declaring that an amount is due to be paid by the Board of Directors (jointly or severally) this circumstance came in the way of the petitioner in not being able to have his nomination paper accepted. Merely because this may be a situation is no ground for the High Court to look into an aspect whether the Act is ultra vires. 7. Whether the amount is due or not is an aspect-which is being considered in a pending writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 12487 of 1996) brought by the petitioner himself. Until that petition is heard, this Court should be expressing nothing on merits in the subsequently filed writ petition. 8. All that the petitioner faces is a situation to have his name cleared and not to be a defaulter. The key is in the hands of the petitioner. Until that petition is heard, this Court should be expressing nothing on merits in the subsequently filed writ petition. 8. All that the petitioner faces is a situation to have his name cleared and not to be a defaulter. The key is in the hands of the petitioner. Should he deposit the amount even as a passport to enter the election he may have the situation for himself. It is entirely up to the petitioner to make the deposit or not.This is not a good ground for the High Court to consider whether the Act is ultra vires. 9. In the circumstances, this petition for the purpose of which it was filed is misconceived. 10. Dismissed.