Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1182 (MP)

Sanjay Nagayach v. State of M. P.

2011-10-14

ALOK ARADHE

body2011
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J.:- In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the Chairman of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Panna, has challenged the validity of the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies by which the Joint Registrar in purported exercise of powers under Section 53 (1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has superseded the Board of Directors of respondent No. 8 - Bank for a period of one year and the Collector has been appointed as Officer-in-charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of mandatory provisions contained in proviso to Section 53 (1) of the Act in as much as, no prior and effective consultation has been made in the Reserve Bank Of India. It is also submitted that order of supersession cannot be passed for the lapses of the previous Managing Committee of the Bank. It was also urged that the impugned order suffers from the malafides and as the same has been passed at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5. In support of his submissions, earned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions reported in Tata Exports Ltd., Vs. The Union of India and others, 1986 MPLJ 561 , Board of Directors of Shri Ganesh Sahakari Vipnan (Marketing) Sanstha Maryadit and another Vs. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Khargone and others, 1982 MPLJ 46 , Sitaram Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and another, 1986 MPLJ 567 as well as decision of Supreme Court in (201 1) 5 SCC 697. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under Section 78 of the Act to challenge the impugned order before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal. The petitioner instead of resorting to the alternative remedy has straight away approached this Court. It was urged that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. It was further submitted that order under Section 53(1) of the Act need not be executed, as it comes into force on its own. The Collector has already taken charge of the Bank on 1.10.2011. It was urged that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. It was further submitted that order under Section 53(1) of the Act need not be executed, as it comes into force on its own. The Collector has already taken charge of the Bank on 1.10.2011. The allegations of malafides contained in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.12 of the writ petition have no connection with the order passed by the Joint Registrar. There is no averment in the writ petition that respondents No.4 and 5 have exercised any influence on Joint Registrar for passing the impugned order. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on decisions reported in 1988 RN 396, 1966 JLJ 735 and 1967 SLR 771. In the backdrop of well settled legal position, if the facts of the case are seen, it is clear that the instant writ petition has not been filed by the petitioner for enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It is also not the case of the petitioner that proceedings initiated against the petitioner are per-se without jurisdiction. Section 78 of the Act provides remedy of appeal before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal. The Cooperative Tribunal is manned by a Judicial Officer. There is no averment in the entire writ petition against the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy for ventilation of his grievance in the form of an appeal before the Tribunal, where the petitioner can challenge the order of supersession on all grounds.