Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1426 (HP)

Surjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-10-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of resolution No. 46, dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure P2/ A) and office order, dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P2). He has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to merge the Branch Office of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited at Awah Devi, Tehsil Bamsan (Touni Devi), District Hamirpur, H.P., with Samirpur Branch, Disrict Hamirpur, H.P., on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition. 2. The respondents have filed the replies. 3. It is contended that the Branch Office at Awah Devi, Tehsil Bamsan (Touni Devi), District Hamirpur, H.P. was running in losses and in terms of the decision taken by the higher authorities in the meeting held on 05.02.2014 (Annexure R1), the respondents have passed the followup orders, whereby the said Branch Office stands merged with Samirpur Branch and is now functional in that Branch. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the respondent-Bank is a registered cooperative society under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, thus, is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State, and the writ petition is not maintainable against a Society as this Court in CWP No. 6709 of 2013, titled as Sanjeev Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1061, while relying on the earlier decision of this Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra versus H.P. State Coop. Bank and others, reported in 1993 (2) Sim.L.C. 243, which decision was also affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in Vikram Chauhan versus The Managing Director and ors., reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 742 (FB), has held that the Societies cannot be termed as 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the decision of the respondents is adversely affecting the interests of the account holders and it is against public interest. 6. The moot question for determination in this writ petition is whether the writ petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and seek the reliefs sought for. 7. 5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the decision of the respondents is adversely affecting the interests of the account holders and it is against public interest. 6. The moot question for determination in this writ petition is whether the writ petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and seek the reliefs sought for. 7. Before we will deal with the said issue, it is apt to record herein that the writ petitioner has not questioned the proceedings of the meeting of the Sub-Committee of the State Level Task Force, held on 05.02.2014 (Annexure R1), which is the foundation of the resolution No. 46, dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure P2/ A) and order, dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P2), but has only questioned Annexure P2/A and Annexure P2, which are just follow-up orders. 8. It is the prerogative of the concerned authorities to take a policy decision to open a branch of the Bank at any suitable place and it is also for the said authorities to take policy decision to close or merge the same with other branch. 9. The Apex Court in Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 AIR SCW 1399, has laid down the guidelines and held that Courts should not interfere in policy decision, unless there is arbitrariness on the face of it. 10. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616 , also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision as under: “14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multibrand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices.” 11. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mrs. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the aforesaid judgment herein: “10. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the aforesaid judgment herein: “10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of reasonableness and non arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [ (2000) 8 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3313 )].” 12. It appears that the respondents have examined all aspects and made the decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision making process is bad. The Court cannot sit in appeal and examine correctness of the policy decision. 13. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another versus Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment (supra) herein: “19. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers.” 14. This Court in the cases titled as Nand Lal & another versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 621 of 2014; Sher Singh versus State of H. P. & others, being CWP No. 7115 of 2013 and Gurbachan versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 4625 of 2012 has also laid down the same proposition of law. 15. Applying the test to the instant case, the writ petitioner has not questioned the decision-making process but has questioned the decision arrived at by the authorities. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents, while addressing the arguments, have relied upon the decision made by the Allahabad High Court in the case titled as Raja Ram Diwakar versus Aaryawart Gramin Bank and others, being Writ Petition No. 1866 (MB) of 2009 (PIL), decided on 20.02.2009, wherein it has been held that it is the discretion of the authorities concerned to shift a Bank and the account holders cannot question the same. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment herein: "In our opinion, the discretion to shift the Bank lies with the Board of Directors and unless it is absolutely mala fide, arbitrary or wholly undesirable, the High Court would rarely enter into such matters." 17. Keeping in view the discussions made in para 4 (supra), the writ petition merits to be dismissed. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly alongwith all pending applications.