Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1356 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar

2025-05-08

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. I.A. No. 6374 of 2025 2. Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate, submits that I.A. No. 6374 of 2025 has been filed seeking intervention of Manoj Kumar Singh who is one of the nominees of the State of Jharkhand. He submits that the petitioner may be directed to implead the present intervener as party respondent in the present case. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i. For issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the letter dated 5.5.2025 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder it has been decided that thee cannot be a nominee director of Govt. of Jharkhand on the Board of BISCOMAUN in the absence of equity share holding of the State of Jharkhand. ii. For issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the notification issued by the Respondent No. 2 contained in memo no. 3066 dated 3.4.2025 (Annexure-7) whereby it has been mentioned that the State of Bihar has 99.26% share holding in the BISCOMAUN and the Govt. of Jharkhand has no share capital in the BISCOMAUN and as such the Director nominated by the Govt. of Jharkhand is not in accordance with Section 48(1)(c) of Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002. iii. For a writ of mandamus command the respondents to allow the nominee Director of the State of Jharkhand to participate in the Election of office bearers in BISCOMAUN to be held on 8 and 9 th of May, 2025. iv. Be further pleased to stay the operation of the impugned letter dated 5.5.2025 and notification dated 3.4.2025 during the pendency of the present writ application. v. For issuance of other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as may deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Arguments of the Petitioner-State of Jharkhand 4. The learned Advocate General, State of Jharkhand has submitted that Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “ BISCOMAUN ”) came into existence in 1958 and at that point of time, the State of Bihar had 99.26% shares in BISCOMAUN and remaining 0.74 shares were held by the members of the Cooperative Societies. The learned Advocate General, State of Jharkhand has submitted that Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “ BISCOMAUN ”) came into existence in 1958 and at that point of time, the State of Bihar had 99.26% shares in BISCOMAUN and remaining 0.74 shares were held by the members of the Cooperative Societies. He submits that by virtue of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, BISCOMAUN continued to function in both the States and the area of operation of the BISCOMAUN became the two successor states, namely, State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand. He submits that there was a dispute raised in writ petition filed before Hon’ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 23268 of 2013 between the Board of Directors of BISCOMAUN and the Government of India and ultimately a certificate of registration was issued by the office of Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of India indicating that BISCOMAUN is now registered as Multi State Cooperative Society under Section 103 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2002” ) and the rules framed thereunder and the registration number of the society was also given way back in the year 2014 vide certificate of registration dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure-1) clearly indicating that the area of operation of the society shall be confined to the present State of Bihar and Jharkhand. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the by-laws as approved have been placed on record and he has referred to by-law No. 27 to submit that the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand has a right to nominate a person in the Board of BISCOMAUN. 5. The learned Advocate General has further submitted that letter dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure-3) was issued by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand to BISCOMAUN whereby in terms of clause 27(vi) of the by-laws , name of Shri Aframe Jorge Kujur, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand was nominated for the purposes of election. 5. The learned Advocate General has further submitted that letter dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure-3) was issued by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand to BISCOMAUN whereby in terms of clause 27(vi) of the by-laws , name of Shri Aframe Jorge Kujur, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand was nominated for the purposes of election. He has also referred to another letter dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-4) to submit that the Cooperative Election Authority observed that under Section 48(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act of 2002, in cases where the equity share capital held by the Central or State Government is less than 26%, they have a right to nominate one member and therefore Jharkhand Government’s one nomination is within clause 48(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act of 2002. It was also indicated that Government of Jharkhand has equity share value of approximately Rs. 14.63 lakh as indicated in notification dated 31.01.2025 of the Government of Bihar. 6. The learned Advocate General submits that ultimately the list of nominated members was issued and the name of the person nominated by the petitioner, namely, Aframe Jorge Kujur figured at serial No. 21. He submits that the election was deferred from time to time and even on 04.03.2025 while deferring the election, the nomination from the side of the State of Jharkhand was mentioned which is apparent from Annexure-6. 7. The learned Advocate General submits that the State of Bihar issued another letter dated 03.04.2025 by referring to the earlier letter dated 31.01.2025 stating that the equity share of the State of Bihar was 99.26% and the remaining 0.74% share was that of the Cooperative Societies and therefore the State of Jharkhand has no equity share in BISCOMAUN and it was observed that the nomination made by the State of Jharkhand was not in terms of Section 48(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act of 2002. 8. 8. The learned Advocate General submits that thereafter the petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned communication dated 05.05.2025 as contained in Annexure-8 wherein the said communication of the State of Bihar dated 03.04.2025 was accepted by observing that vide letter dated 22.04.2025 (apparently the date has been wrongly mentioned as 22.04.2024 and it ought to have been 22.04.2025), BISCOMAUN was requested to seek comments from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Jharkhand on the Bihar government’s aforesaid notification dated 03.04.2025 alleging that the State of Jharkhand has no shareholding in BISCOMAUN and having no response, the stand of the State of Bihar was accepted and an order was passed that in absence of any equity shareholding of State of Jharkhand, the State of Jharkhand would have no nominee. 9. The learned Advocate General submits that the communication as mentioned in the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 asking for the comments from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Jharkhand was never served upon the petitioner and consequently no response was given. 10. The learned Advocate General has also referred to Annexure-9 to submit that on the one hand, the State of Bihar has come up with an idea that the State of Jharkhand would have no equity share capital and therefore there would be no nomination from the State of Jharkhand and on the other hand, a letter was issued way back in December, 2000 in relation to BISCOMAUN giving the assets and liabilities of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand and so far as State of Bihar is concerned, their percentage was mentioned as 62.27% and so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, it was mentioned as 37.73%. 11. The learned Advocate General has submitted that 99.26% which the State of Bihar claims as equity in BISCOMAUN was in relation to the status as it stood prior to bifurcation and the entire shareholding to the extent of 99.26% was that of erstwhile State of Bihar as the State of Jharkhand was not in existence. He has submitted that after bifurcation of the state of Bihar and once the BISCOMAUN has become Multi State Cooperative Society, the entire share capital of the erstwhile State of Bihar cannot be assigned to the present State of Bihar. He has submitted that after bifurcation of the state of Bihar and once the BISCOMAUN has become Multi State Cooperative Society, the entire share capital of the erstwhile State of Bihar cannot be assigned to the present State of Bihar. He has submitted that the State of Jharkhand would also have equity in BISCOMAUN and as on date, the assets and liabilities between the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand in connection with BISCOMAUN has not been divided. 12. The learned Advocate General submits that the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 09.05.2025 and if the impugned order is not stayed, the election would be undertaken in absence of the nominee of the State of Jharkhand and the State of Jharkhand would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the impugned order is not stayed. 13. During the course of arguments, in spite of repeated queries made to the learned counsels for the parties and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener, they are not in a position to respond to the query of this Court as to whether any previous election of BISCOMAUN was ever undertaken and whether the nominee of State of Jharkhand was accepted by them or not. Arguments of the intervener 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener has submitted that essentially the dispute is between the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. He has further submitted that under Section 48(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act of 2002, the present State of Bihar having equity more than 51% would be entitled to three nominees and there would be no further room for any nomination from the side of the State of Jharkhand. He has submitted that the State of Jharkhand has zero share equity capital in BISCOMAUN and therefore there cannot be any nomination from the side of the State of Jharkhand. 15. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as Rule 27 of the by-laws relating to nominee is concerned, the same was never approved as is apparent from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 16. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is a provision for arbitration under Section 84 of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. 15. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as Rule 27 of the by-laws relating to nominee is concerned, the same was never approved as is apparent from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 16. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is a provision for arbitration under Section 84 of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. He has also submitted that in his intervention application, he has annexed a copy of the communication dated 22.04.2025 issued to the Cooperative Societies, State of Jharkhand calling for comments on the notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 03.04.2025 within a period of one week, so that the comment may be forwarded to the Central Election Authority of the Cooperative Society. The learned counsel submits that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to say that no communication was received. He submits that the petitioner did not respond to the communication calling for comments and consequently there was no option but to pass Annexure-8 accepting the notification of the State of Bihar Dated 03.04.2025. 17. The learned counsel has submitted that the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 09.05.2025 and no interference is called for in election matter. He submits that neither the participation of the nominee of the petitioner be allowed nor the election be stayed. He has also submitted that the State of Jharkhand has no locus. The writ petition at best could have been filed by Shri Aframe Jorge Kujur who was nominated from the side of the State of Jharkhand. 18. The learned counsel has also submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and the appropriate remedy would be to file a case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Arguments of the State of Bihar 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener. Arguments of the Union of India 20. Learned ASGI appearing on behalf Union of India has submitted that so far as Annexure-8 is concerned, since no response was received from the State of Jharkhand, the order has been rightly passed. He has also submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the aforesaid Act of 2002. Learned ASGI appearing on behalf Union of India has submitted that so far as Annexure-8 is concerned, since no response was received from the State of Jharkhand, the order has been rightly passed. He has also submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the aforesaid Act of 2002. He has referred to Section 84(2)(c) to submit that any dispute arising in connection with election of any officer of a Multi-State Cooperative Society is referable to Arbitration and is governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 21. The learned counsel has also submitted that unless the share capital of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand with respect to BISCOMAUN is finalized, no nomination of the State of Jharkhand can be entertained in terms of Section 48 of the aforesaid Act of 2002. Findings of this Court at this stage 22. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly the erstwhile State of Bihar had 99.26% equity in BISCOMAUN and the remaining was with the Cooperative Societies. However, after bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Bihar into present State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the certificate was issued to BISCOMAUN under Section 103 of the aforesaid Act of 2002 and the rules framed thereunder and the area of operation of the society has now become Multi State Cooperative Society and the area of operation of BISCOMAUN has been shown as the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. This has happened by virtue of provision of Section 103 of the aforesaid Act of 2002 read with the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23268 of 2013. 23. It appears from the records of this case that initially one notification was issued by the Government of Bihar dated 31.01.2025 indicating that the Government of Jharkhand has equity value approximately 14.63 lakhs and as a follow up to that, the State of Jharkhand was to nominate one person in terms of Section 48(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act of 2002. It appears that pursuant thereto, the nomination was made by the State of Jharkhand and three nominations were made from the side of the State of Bihar as admittedly State of Bihar had more than 51% share equity in BISCOMAUN. It appears that pursuant thereto, the nomination was made by the State of Jharkhand and three nominations were made from the side of the State of Bihar as admittedly State of Bihar had more than 51% share equity in BISCOMAUN. The order regarding nomination by the State of Jharkhand was passed by the Cooperative Election Authority as contained in Annexure-4. 24. It further appears that the date of election was deferred from time to time. Subsequently, Annexure-7 dated 03.04.2025 was issued by the State of Bihar indicating that as per letter dated 31.01.2025, the State of Bihar would have equity to the extent of 99.26% and consequently there would be no equity share capital of the State of Jharkhand and therefore the nomination in the Board by the State of Jharkhand was not in accordance with Section 48(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act of 2002. However, the nomination of the State of Jharkhand was accepted by the Cooperative Election Authority by referring to Section 48(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act of 2002 and Shri Aframe Jorge Kujur was accepted as a nominee. 25. This Court finds that as per the writ petition one letter dated 22.04.2024 was issued calling for comments from the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Government of Jharkhand to the letter issued by the State of Bihar on 03.04.2025. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the letter No. has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as 22.04.2024 and as per the arguments of the parties, it ought to have been 22.04.2025. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that since no response was received to the letter dated 22.04.2025 calling for comments to the notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 03.04.2025, there would be only 17 elected directors and 3 nominated directors of the Government of Bihar and the participation of the nominee of the petitioner-State of Jharkhand was excluded. 26. As per the writ petition, the letter dated 22.04.2025 was never served upon the writ petitioner. However, the intervener has placed the letter dated 22.04.2025 calling for comments from the State of Jharkhand, but it is not clear from the letter or from the intervention application as to how and in what mode, the said letter was communicated to the State of Jharkhand. 27. However, the intervener has placed the letter dated 22.04.2025 calling for comments from the State of Jharkhand, but it is not clear from the letter or from the intervention application as to how and in what mode, the said letter was communicated to the State of Jharkhand. 27. This court is of the view that the core issue involved in this case is- after bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, and upon creation of present state of Bihar and State of Jharkhand whether the State of Jharkhand would have any share equity capital in BISCOMAUN once the BISCOMAUN acquires the status of Multi-State Cooperative Society by virtue of force of law. It is nobody’s case that the State of Jharkhand would have no assets in connection with BISCOMAUN. Rather it has been argued by both the parties that the assets and liabilities in connection with BISCOMAUN between the Successors State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand is yet to be apportioned. 28. Today is the first listing of the case and counter affidavits are yet to be filed. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the dispute is primarily between the successors States of erstwhile State of Bihar, that is present state of Bihar and State of Jharkhand as to the nomination in BISCOMAUN which is dependent upon share equity capital of the states. At this stage, this Court is not satisfied that the present writ petition is not maintainable and the dispute can be raised only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Other objection regarding alternative remedy through arbitration is yet to be considered subject to filing of the counter affidavit raising such objection, if any. However, the aforesaid issues would be subject to the filing of counter-affidavits and any objection(s) which may be raised in the counter-affidavit by the respective parties and will be considered. 29. So far as the election which is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 09.05.2025 is concerned, this Court is of the view that the election to be held completely excludes the nomination of the State of Jharkhand which has a serious bearing in connection with the rights of the State of Jharkhand in relation to BISCOMAUN. 29. So far as the election which is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 09.05.2025 is concerned, this Court is of the view that the election to be held completely excludes the nomination of the State of Jharkhand which has a serious bearing in connection with the rights of the State of Jharkhand in relation to BISCOMAUN. This court is of the view that in order to balance the equities amongst the parties the election cannot be stayed and therefore the election is directed to proceed but the final result of the election will not be declared till the next date of hearing, 09.06.2025. 30. The counter-affidavits by the appearing parties be filed by 20.05.2025. 31. Rejoinder, if any, should be filed by 29.05.2025. 32. Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 through speed-post, for which requisites be filed by 14.05.2025. The notice should accompany a copy of this order. 33. Dasti in addition. 34. Office is directed to track speed-post-delivery and prepare appropriate office note with regard to service of notice. 35. The affidavit regarding service of notice through Dasti be filed by the petitioner latest by 25.05.2025. 36. It is further made clear that the mode of communication of the letter dated 22.04.2025 seeking comments of the petitioner on the notification dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-7) issued by the State of Bihar with proof of its dispatch and service to the petitioner should be placed on record by the party who claims that the said letter was issued and served upon the petitioner. 37. I.A. No. 6374 of 2025 seeking intervention is hereby allowed. 38. The office is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title. 39. Post this case on 09.06.2025.