Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 874 (JHR)

T. Satyanarayan Rao v. State of Jharkhand

2019-04-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner and the State. 2. The order dated 03.08.2012 passed in WPC No. 657/2007 of which, review is sought, reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The case was adjourned on earlier occasion enabling the counsel for the petitioner to justify as to whether the writ petition itself is maintainable against the private respondent nos. 5 and 6, against whose order petitioner is aggrieved and preferred this writ petition. The aforesaid order being annexed to the writ petition as annexure7, 8 and 9. From perusal of the aforesaid annexures contained in Annexures 7, 8 and 9 it appears that the authorities passing the impugned orders are President and Chief Executive Officer of “Adarsh Sahkari Griha Nirman Swablambi Samiti, Sonari, Jamshedpur, which is a cooperative society registered under the Self Supporting Cooperative Society Act, 1996. From the contents of the writ petition as also from the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it is apparent that these authorities are not State authorities neither the board over which they are presiding is State or its instrumentality, rather they are purely cooperative society which is governed by its by-laws and against the order of the authorities of the said society, no writ can be preferred in the manner sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner may have any other remedy available in law, which is open for it to pursue, if permissible in accordance with law. From the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is not maintainable against the private parties being the office bearers of Cooperative Society, as stated herein above. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the writ petition was taken up, prayer for adjournment was disallowed and the case was decided. The writ petitioner had brought on record an order dated 29.06.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2006 (Annexure-10) by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jamshedpur, whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected with a finding that since the petitioner is a self supporting cooperative society, the concerned Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the petition. The writ petitioner had brought on record an order dated 29.06.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2006 (Annexure-10) by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jamshedpur, whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected with a finding that since the petitioner is a self supporting cooperative society, the concerned Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the petition. It has been further submitted in support of the prayer for review that the case of the petitioner was not covered by the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 as it has got no retrospective effect. The petitioner being the Member of Cooperative Society (Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samittee Ltd., Sonari, Jamshedpur) is guided by the provisions of Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and not by any other Act including Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996. 4. From perusal of the connected record and the present Review Petition, specifically at para-1, it is clear that the order dated 29.06.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2006 by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jamshedpur (Annexure10 to the Writ Petition) was not under challenge. What were under challenge in the writ petition were the letters dated 15.11.2004, 09.12.2004 and 28.01.2005 of the Chief Executive of Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swablambi Samittee (Ltd.), Sonari, Jamshedpur addressed to the petitioner in connection with certain outstanding loan against his name which he was being asked to clear, failing which allotment would be cancelled. The Chief Executive of Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samittee Ltd., Jamshedpur (Respondent Nos. 5) and Respondent No. 6-Sri Y.N. Yadav (impleaded by name) were office bearers of the Society, who do not come within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition was not directed against the State nor the order was passed by the State authorities. Having taken note of the aforesaid state of facts, the writ Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable against private parties being the office bearers of Cooperative Societies. However, while dismissing the writ petition, it was observed that the petitioner may have any other remedy available in law, which was open for it to pursue, if permissible in accordance with law. 5. Viewed thus, there is no error apparent on the face of record made out in the instant Review Petition to seek recall of the order dated 03.08.2012. 5. Viewed thus, there is no error apparent on the face of record made out in the instant Review Petition to seek recall of the order dated 03.08.2012. As such, this Court does not find any grounds to entertain this Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. However, while parting, it is again reiterated that liberty reserved to the petitioner by the writ Court remains available for him to pursue, if permissible in accordance with law. Review dismissed.