Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 564 (MP)

Girraj Sharma v. State of M. P.

2016-07-15

ALOK ARADHE, ANAND PATHAK

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Taking into account the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.5. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 29.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Peittion No.4387/2016, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 4. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant is agriculturist and is member of Cooperative Society namely Lal Bahadur Shastri Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Morena. The appellant learnt that some of the members of the Society have taken steps for selling the property of the Society, thereupon he made a complaint to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal contained in Annexure P-1 in which inter alia direction was sought that the plots of the society are being sold to Land Mafia and the fraud is being played with the members of the society and the appropriate action should be taken against the delinquent office bearers after conducting an enquiry. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 29.6.2016 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the action of the office bearers amounts to an offence under section 72-D of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the Act”), and therefore, the appellant has a remedy of filing a complaint under section 76 of the Act. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not a case of the appellant that the office bearer has committed an offence under section 72-D(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the appellant has sough direction to the competent authority to decide his representation and depending upon the fate of the representation the appellant would avail of the remedy provided to him under section 76 of the Act. 6. On the other hand learned Government Advocate submits that suitable action on the complaint submitted by the appellant shall be taken by the competent authority. 7. 6. On the other hand learned Government Advocate submits that suitable action on the complaint submitted by the appellant shall be taken by the competent authority. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the writ petition it is evident that the appellant has sought direction to the competent authority to take action on the complaint which is submitted by the appellant. From perusal of the complaint Annexure P-1, it is not a case of appellant that office bearers of the society have committed an offence under section 72-D of the Act. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the order dated 29.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the appellant by a speaking order expeditiously. Needless to state that the competent authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as office bearers of the respondent No.5 before conducting any enquiry into the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of.