Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 130 (JHR)

Md. Ahsanul Haque v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-28

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order vide Memo No. 992 dated 27.06.2008 (Annexure-3) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) whereby he has dissolved the Mahgama Swawlambhi Matasyagivi Cooperative Societies and has appointed the Respondent No. 5 as the Liquidator, in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 45 of the Self Supporting Societies Act, 1996. 2. The challenge to the impugned order is based primarily on the ground that the Respondent No. 2 had acted beyond his authority since he had no power to dissolve the Self Supporting Societies as because such power is vested only with the Tribunal and none else. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent State acknowledging the fact that the dissolution of the society by the order of the Respondent No. 2 is an error since the Respondent No. 2 did not have authority to pass any such order of dissolving the society. An explanation has been sought to be given however, that since at the relevant time the Tribunal was not functioning, therefore, the Respondent No. 2 had assumed the authority to dissolve the society but having considered the fact that it is legally impermissible, the impugned order is liable to be rescinded. 4. I.A. No. 2337 of 2008 has been filed by Mahagama Matasya Jiwi Sahyog Samittee Limited together with one Gopal Mahaldar with a prayer that they be allowed to be impleaded as intervenors in this writ application. 5. Shri V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the intervenors would explain that the intervenors have a definite grievance against the petitioner. Learned counsel explains that prior to the order of dissolution of the petitioner’s society, the petitioner had assumed the role of Chief Executive of the Society and the manner of his functioning was totally detrimental to the interest of the intervenors and the society to which the intervenors represent. 5. Considering the fact that the Respondent State have acknowledged the fact that the impugned order does suffer from the vice of abuse of authority and having found that the Respondent No.2 did not have any such authority to pass an order of liquidating the petitioner’s society, the prayer for setting aside the impugned order is hereby allowed and the same is set aside. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. If the intervenors have any grievance, they may approach the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. I.A. No. 2337 of 2008 stands disposed of.