Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2222 (ALL)

DUGADH UTAPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-09-21

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2012
B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners 2 and 3 who are President and Secretary of the petitioner no.1 Society, are challenging the auction notice dated 14.7.2012, 21.9.2012 and the recovery certificate dated 10.2.2010 issued by the respondent no.2. 3. The case of of the petitioner is that some villagers of the petitioner's village founded a Sahakari Samiti, namely, Dugadh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti, Rajepur, Bheem, Azamgarh ( hereinafter referred to as 'Samiti') on 25.6.2006, which is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder. However, there is no averment either in the writ petition or in the supplementary affidavit which has been filed today in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.9.2012, as to whether the petitioner's society is registered under the U.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that the society took a loan of Rs. 10 lacs on 16.3.2007 as stated by Sri Shashidhar Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.7 Union Bank of India. A recovery citation was issued to the petitioners on 10.2.2010 and still when the loan was not paid by the petitioners a notice dated 14.7.2012 for auction of the mortgaged property was issued and 21.9.2012 was fixed for auction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prem Narayan Rai submits that under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Cooperative Society between a bank giving financial assistance to Cooperative society other than disputes relating to disciplinary action shall be referred by either of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar of the cooperative societies for his decision. He further submits that in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, 1973, the dispute relating to payment of loan should have been referred to the Registrar U.P. Cooperative Societies and neither any recovery citation could have been issued nor any auction notice could have been issued. 6. On the other hand, Sri S.D. Sahay, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the loan was taken by the Samiti and therefore the recovery citation also has been issued against the Samiti. 6. On the other hand, Sri S.D. Sahay, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the loan was taken by the Samiti and therefore the recovery citation also has been issued against the Samiti. The submission of the petitioner however, is that the respondent no.7 could not have proceeded for recovery of the loan against the Samiti. 7. Having gone through the writ petition as well as the supplementary affidavit filed today and the documents on record, it may be seen that the loan was taken by the Samiti. There is no averment either in the writ petition or in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner cooperative society is registered under the U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 and in such circumstances being an unregistered society, it is not entitled for any benefit under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 15 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, also will have no application to the petitioner society. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the averments in para 7 and para 16 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the membership of the Samiti has been duly approved by the Regional Dugadh Vitaran Officer, Faizabad/ Azamgarh Division on 24.4.2007 and that the petitioner no.3 had resigned on 12.6.2007 and one Mr. Ram Ashrey Rai was elected as Secretary of the Samiti. In para 16 of the writ petition it is stated that there are many irregularities in the recovery certificate and no notice has been issued to the petitioner by any valid/ legal means. 9. However, for reasons stated above, the petitioner society is not registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and therefore, is also not entitled to the protection under Section 15 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. 10. The writ petition is totally misconceived and lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.