Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 667 (HP)

Met Trade India Ltd. v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2013-07-16

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.B.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT : A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondents waives notice. Taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that respondent Nos.7 to 9 are obstructing the business activities of the petitioner and forcing the petitioner to engage vehicles belonging to them alone and not of any other person of their choice. Further relief claimed is that respondent No.3 be directed to register FIR against respondents No.7 to 9 under appropriate Sections of Indian Penal Code. It is further prayed that respondents 4&5 be directed to cancel the registration of respondent No.7 Society and the State must initiate inquiry against respondents 4&5 who have, despite knowing that the Society is engaging itself in illegal activity, allowed the registration of the Society and have approved the bye-laws made by the Society. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is doing business of manufacturing of aluminium sheets and other allied products at Damtal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. In connection with the said business, the petitioner is required to import material and export the finished items from Damtal to other destinations outside Damtal. Respondent No.7 Society is registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. The area of operation of respondent No.7 Society covers the revenue jurisdiction of development block Indora (except villages Kandwal, Lodhwan, Rapar and Gangath) and Development Block Fatehpur in Kangra District of Himachal Pradesh and such other areas as may be inducted lawfully at any time or from time to time as is mentioned in the approved bye-laws of the Society, in particular Clause 3 thereof. The objects for which the Society has been registered are mentioned in Clause 5, amongst others, to manage, govern, control, regularise the conduct of truck operating business within the area of operation and to undertake such other measures to spread knowledge of cooperative principles and practices and to undertake other activities as are incidental and conducive to the attainment of the other objects mentioned in clause 5. The fact that respondent No.7 Society is a registered Society and has the area of operation which is overlapping with the activities of the petitioner does not mean that respondent No.7 Society can impose restrictions on the petitioner in relation to their business activities including regarding the movement of trucks engaged by the petitioner. 5. The perception of respondent No.7 Society that it can regulate the movement of the trucks to be engaged by the petitioner is completely ill-advised and misinformed. The terms specified in bye-laws can only bind the members of the Society and cannot be the basis to govern the activities of third party who does not have any dealing with the Society in any manner. 6. Reliance placed by respondent No.7 Society on their byelaw's, therefore, is inapposite and cannot be the basis to interdict the business activities of the petitioner and including to obstruct the movements of the trucks employed by the petitioner from third parties who are not the members of respondent No.7 Society. Respondent No.7 is not the repository of authority, which vests in the State. Respondent No.7 Society in that sense is not an instrumentality of the State authorised and empowered or delegated with the authority to regulate the movements of the trucks in its area of operation. This is complete mis-information and mis-interpretation of the provisions of the bye-laws. The bye-laws, as aforesaid, would bind only the Society and the members inter se and not the third parties or their activities. 7. A priori, if respondent No.7 Society continues to obstruct the activities of the petitioner, respondent No.3 must take immediate action in the matter, in accordance with law. Failure to comply with that obligation will not only be abdication of power of respondent No.3 but also will be viewed as committing contempt of this Court in terms of this order. Similarly, respondents No.4&5 must take immediate action against all the erring Societies, if they are forcing some third parties or obstructing third parties from engaging in their business activities in any manner. If such grievance is brought before the said authorities, the State authorities must immediately take action in accordance with law. 8. Similarly, respondents No.4&5 must take immediate action against all the erring Societies, if they are forcing some third parties or obstructing third parties from engaging in their business activities in any manner. If such grievance is brought before the said authorities, the State authorities must immediately take action in accordance with law. 8. We place on record the statement made by the counsel for the State that respondent No.7 Society has been directed by the Registrar to refrain from acting upon bye law 5(iv) or to resort to the said bye-law for creating obstruction to the petitioner and similarly placed persons who are not members of respondent No.7 Society. If that direction is not complied by respondent No.7, we have no manner of doubt that respondent Nos.4&5 may take appropriate measures against respondent No.7 Society in accordance with law. 9. The counsel for respondent No.7 was at pains to point out that the practice followed by respondent No.7 is being adopted even at other places across the State. By imposing restriction on respondent No.7, it would lead to an anomalous situation. We are not concerned with any other society. In the present petition, as aforesaid, respondent No.7 Society cannot rely on its bye-laws and arrogate to itself authority to regulate the transport business in the entire area even in respect of persons who are not its members. That cannot be countenanced. 10. Counsel for respondent No.7 has also contended that the petitioner Industry has been permitted to start the business activities in the stated area by the State Government on condition that they will employ 70% of the locals in all its manufacturing and transport activities. That cannot be a ground to usurp the power which vests in the State Government. It is for the State Government to consider whether engagement of trucks of third parties by the petitioner results in breach of that condition. It will be open to the State Government to proceed against the petitioner on that basis if so advised in accordance with law. 11. In the circumstances this petition ought to succeed and is disposed of on the above basis.