Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajendra Menon, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, JJ.
Raman Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 526 of 2018; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2597 of 2009
Decided On : 16-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Yogendra Mishra, Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav
The court emphasized the importance of availing statutory remedies and the consequences of pursuing frivolous litigations.
Headnote:
Termination of Membership - Cooperative Society - Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 48 - The court dismissed the appeal challenging the termination of membership of the original petitioner from the Cooperative Society. The court found that the original petitioner did not challenge the termination letter and failed to avail the statutory remedy of review/appeal. The court also noted the history of litigations initiated by the original petitioner and the Society's decision to terminate the membership due to financial loss caused by the litigations. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated and refused to set aside the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose when the Society allotted a plot to the original petitioner and 12 other members, but the allotment was revised, and the petitioner was offered an alternative plot. The original petitioner did not agree with the offer and filed multiple complaints and litigations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original petitioner did not challenge the termination letter and failed to avail the statutory remedy of review/appeal. The court also noted the history of litigations initiated by the original petitioner and the Society's decision to terminate the membership due to financial loss caused by the litigations. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated and refused to set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of membership, failure to challenge the termination letter, and the history of litigations initiated by the original petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the original petitioner's failure to challenge the termination letter and avail the statutory remedy, along with the history of litigations, justified the refusal to set aside the impugned order.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the appellants for pursuing a frivolous litigation.
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed by learned writ court in CWJC No. 2597/2009. By the impugned judgment, the learned writ court has refused to quash and cancel the order dated 02.09.2008 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 3), by which he has dismissed the petitioner's application registered vide Dispute Case No. 103/2005 and Dispute Case No. 13/2006.
2. Learned writ court has also refused to quash the letter dated 29.10.2007 issued by the Secretary of the Society by which the petitioner's membership of the said society has been terminated. Having refused to grant the aforesaid reliefs to the petitioner, the learned writ court could not be persuaded to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure that a plot of land of the category and area which the petitioner is entitled to in the Society by virtue of the membership of the Society is allotted to him and the possession of the same is given to him by completing all formalities such as registration etc. and to pay a fine and suitable compensation.
3. While dismissing the writ application, the learned writ court came to a conclusion as under:-
"9. Apparently, the present position is that the petitioner is not a member of the Society as his membership has already been terminated. The termination order was not challenged even though for other reliefs the petitioner had approached the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which would mean that he had waived his right to challenge the decision of termination of membership. Moreover, even in the termination order, it has clearly been mentioned that the petitioner may file review/appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order but the petitioner failed to avail of the remedy of review/appeal. .."
4. On going through the materials available on the record and in the narration of facts in the impugned judgment of the learned writ court, we find that the writ petition was initially filed by one Bhup Narayan Lal Das, who died during pendency of the writ application on 09.03.2011, thereafter these petitioners-appellants along with the wife of the deceased petitioner were substituted. The wife of the deceased petitioner also died on 28.07.2014, and, thereafter, the present appellants who remained on the records are the two sons and two daughters of the original writ petitioners.
5. The undisputed facts of the case have been noticed by the learned writ court from paragraph-6 onwards. The dispute seems to have arisen when the Society earlier allotted a plot to the original petitioner and 12 other members of the Society but because the allotment could not materialize as the land could not be made available to the Society, the allotments so made were subsequently revised in which a plot measuring 3885 sq. ft. was allotted to the petitioner. Twelve other members were also given land either of the same area or even similar than which was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was however was not satisfied with this revised allotment which was a little bit lesser than the earlier area of 3926 sq. ft. allotted to the petitioners. The other members accepted the revised allotment.
6. The original petitioner thereafter moved to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, for a direction to the Society to ensure allotment of the land of the same area with same locations and situations. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent no. 3) issued a direction to the Society to provide land of similar area in similar location and situation, but the Society was unable to provide such plot to the petitioner, the petitioner was offered an alternative plot which was available and feasible for the Society to provide him at that point of time. The original petitioner did not agree with the offer made by the Society, rather he filed a complaint before the Registrar alleging that his direction was not complied w
