Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 395 (MP)

Balkrishna Chobe v. State of M. P.

2024-05-06

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, VIVEK RUSIA

body2024
ORDER Vivek Rusia, J.-- 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed the present appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2021 whereby the Writ Court has dismissed Writ Petition No. 12288 of 2020. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under:- (i) Respondent No.8 is a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Banwar, District Gwalior, in which the petitioner/ appellant was appointed as Society Manager. An FIR was registered against the petitioner/appellant at Crime No.17/19 on 8.2.2019. Upon the filing of the charge sheet in Criminal Case No.42/19, he was placed under suspension vide order dt.11.2.2019. Apart from that, Dy. Commissioner, Cooperative Societies District Gwalior in case No.58 (B) 02/2018 found the petitioner responsible for embezzlement of Rs.20,24,656.68. After considering all these involvement and embezzlement and registration of criminal cases, vide order dt.29.1.2020, the District Administrator of the Society terminated him from service under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan and Karya Sthithi) Niyam. (ii) The appellant/petitioner raised a dispute under section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act) before the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior. The society filed the reply and vide order dt.26.6.2020, Dy. Registrar (Judicial) Cooperative Societies Gwalior set aside the order of termination dt.29.1.2020 and directed reinstatement of petitioner/appellant in service without back wages. (iii) According to the petitioner, the said order had attained finality but Dr Govind Singh, MLA vide letter dt.7.7.2020 requested the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department to enquire into this matter and take action in accordance with law against the responsible employees of various societies. A suo motu revision was registered by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 on 5.8.2020. (iv) The appellant/petitioner rushed to this court by filing W.P.No.12288/2020 challenging show-cause notice. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Joint Registrar passed the final order dated. 28.05.2020 by setting aside the order 26.6.2020 and remanding the matter back to decide afresh after framing the issue. (v) By way of amendment, petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in W.P.No.12288/2020. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that if anyone was aggrieved by the order of Dy. 28.05.2020 by setting aside the order 26.6.2020 and remanding the matter back to decide afresh after framing the issue. (v) By way of amendment, petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in W.P.No.12288/2020. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that if anyone was aggrieved by the order of Dy. Registrar dt.26.6.2020, he could have preferred an appeal under Section 78 of the Act. The power of suo motu revision has wrongly been exercised under section 80-A of the Act against the petitioner and the order is bad in law. Respondent No.8 filed the reply justifying the action of the Joint Registrar. (vi) Writ Court after considering the entire material available on record has dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that respondent No.3 has jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under section 80-A of the Act on the basis of the complaint and the petitioner has a remedy of appeal to challenge the order dt.26.6.2020 before the Cooperative Tribunal. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide order dt.3.1.2024, this Court framed the sole issue for adjudication of this appeal, which is reproduced below:- “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Registrar could have exercised powers under section 80-A while setting aside the final order passed by the Deputy Registrar in the teeth of the fact that order so passed was appellable under section 78 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act ?” 4. Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant submits that the order of Dy. Registrar dated 26.6.2020 had attained finality as no appeal under section 78 of the Act was filed by the Society. Therefore, the matter could not have been taken up in the suo motu revision under section 80 of the Act. Shri D.P.Singh Singh further submits that under Section 80-A of the Act, the Registrar may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for and examine the record of any enquiry or proceedings by any sub-ordinate officer. Shri D.P.Singh Singh further submits that under Section 80-A of the Act, the Registrar may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for and examine the record of any enquiry or proceedings by any sub-ordinate officer. In this case, no such enquiry or proceeding was pending before the subordinate officer and this power under section 80A of the Act can only be exercised in pending enquiry or proceeding before the subordinate officer and as per second part of section 80-A of the Act, the Registrar may entertain the suo motu revision against the decision or order of the Board of Director of the Society for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order. In this case, revision has been entertained against the final order which is beyond the jurisdiction of Dy. Registrar under section 80-A of the Act. 5. Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State rebuts that the aforesaid contention of Shri D.P.Singh is unsustainable because the Registrar has the power to examine the record of any enquiry or proceedings by subordinate officer or decision or order of the Board of Director of a society for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the learned Writ Court has rightly held that the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar is appealable. If the petitioner/appellant is aggrieved by the order on merits, he may assail the same before the Co-operative Tribunal by way of appeal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.1643 of 2021 (Gulab Singh v. District Co-operative Central Bank Maryadit Gwalior and others) at Gwalior and W.P.No.113 of 2012 (Adarsh Adivasi Machhchua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jabalpur and others) at Indore. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The contention of Shri D.P.Singh is that suo motu revision has been entertained based on a letter sent by the local MLA and not by the party to any proceeding. So far as the role of the MLAs is concerned, they are representatives of the public. These co-operative societies run the fair price shops for the benefit of the public. The contention of Shri D.P.Singh is that suo motu revision has been entertained based on a letter sent by the local MLA and not by the party to any proceeding. So far as the role of the MLAs is concerned, they are representatives of the public. These co-operative societies run the fair price shops for the benefit of the public. If any misappropriation, embezzlement or illegality is committed in the said distribution, the public at large would be affected. Therefore, on the basis of complaints by the public or the consumers or the beneficiaries, the public representative can request / direct the Principal Secretary of the department to look into the matter or conduct an enquiry, there is nothing illegal in it. The public representative may represent the cause of the public before the competent authority in respect of the misconduct, illegality or irregularity alleged to have been committed by the government servants or the members of the society etc. 7. So far as the question of exercising the power under section 80-A of the Act by the registrar is concerned, the language of the section is very clear i.e. the Registrar may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for and examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings by subordinate officer or a decision or order of the Board of Directors of a Society. Therefore, the suo motu revision can be entertained against the final decision of subordinate authority also for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision. The impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar can not said to be beyond jurisdiction or without authority as alleged by the petitioner/appellant. 8. The Registrar may get information from various sources to exercise the suo motu power and that source need not be disclosed by him while exercising the power of suo motu. The only requirement is the opportunity of hearing should be given to the person concerned and that has been complied with in this case. Therefore, the question of law framed by the Court is answered against the appellant/petitioner. The Registrar has rightly exercised the power under section 80-A of the Act for setting aside the final order passed by the Dy. Registrar despite the fact that an appeal lies under section 78 of the Act. Therefore, the question of law framed by the Court is answered against the appellant/petitioner. The Registrar has rightly exercised the power under section 80-A of the Act for setting aside the final order passed by the Dy. Registrar despite the fact that an appeal lies under section 78 of the Act. There is no bar to exercising power under section 80A of the Act even if no appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Dy. Registrar. 9. Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.