Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 84 (CAL)

Ishrafil Dafadar v. The State of West Bengal

2008-01-21

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2008
Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J The six petitioners, erstwhile directors of the board of Barnia Samabaya Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, a co-operative society, are questioning the order of the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal dated December 20th, 2007 (at p.37) made under S.30(2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 dissolving the existing board of directors of the society and appointing board of administrators with immediate effect. In par.18 the petitioners have said as follows. “The petitioner submits that there is no other alternative, legal, efficacious speedy remedy than to move an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek appropriate relief. The relief sought for herein, if granted, would afford full, adequate and complete remedy.” In terms of provisions in S.136 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 an appeal shall lie from an order shown in col.2 to the authority shown in col.3 and within the period shown in col.4 of the third Schedule to the Act. In the schedule in sl.No.4 it has been specifically provided that an appeal lies against an order dissolving the board and appointing administrator under S.30 to the co-operative tribunal having jurisdiction. It has further been provided that any director of the board may prefer an appeal within two months from the date at which the order is communicated. It is therefore evident that against the impugned order the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal before the tribunal. In the writ petition they have not disclosed this fact. As a result, there was no occasion for them to state why they should be permitted to bye-pass the statutory appellate forum. Facing with the situation, Mr. Deb Burman, their counsel, submits that the order of the government is without jurisdiction, and hence the petitioners are entitled to approach the writ court bye-passing the statutory appellate forum. When I wanted him to show me the pleading and grounds, he invited me to keep the point open so that the petitioners may agitate it before the tribunal. Hence I do not propose to examine the question. I only say that the petitioners have not made out any such case as may be considered a warrant for permitting them to bye-pass the statutory appellate forum. In my view, they should go to that forum. Hence I do not propose to examine the question. I only say that the petitioners have not made out any such case as may be considered a warrant for permitting them to bye-pass the statutory appellate forum. In my view, they should go to that forum. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition making it clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the petitioners from approaching the statutory appellate forum questioning the order impugning which they took out this writ petition. There shall be no order for costs.