Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Parth Prateem Sahu, JJ.
Sachin Singh Baghel & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 227 of 2020 (Arising out of order dated 14.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.636 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge)
Decided On : 19-03-2020
Shri Prafull N. Bharat and Shri S.S. Baghel, Advocates, for the Appellant; Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate General with Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Suspension - Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 53(1) - [Annexure P/1 order dated 03.02.2020] - [Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960] - The court discussed the legality of the suspension order and the requirement of consultation with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) before passing any order of supersession. The court highlighted the provisions of the Act regarding the maximum period of suspension, the necessity of consultation with the RBI, and the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing orders on supersession. The court emphasized that the appeal against the interim order of stay was not maintainable under the Act of 2006.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants, who were members of the Board of Directors of a bank, challenged the suspension order passed by the 2nd Respondent. They argued that the suspension was an abuse of the process of law and sought relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal against the interim order of stay was not maintainable under the Act of 2006. It expressed hope for the expeditious consideration and finalization of the pending writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the suspension order, the requirement of consultation with the RBI, and the maintainability of the appeal against the interim order of stay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal against the interim order of stay was not maintainable under the Act of 2006. It emphasized the need for expeditious consideration and finalization of the pending writ petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under any circumstance. The court expressed hope for the expeditious consideration and finalization of the pending writ petition.
JUDGMENT
P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ. - Rejection of I.A. No.01 of 2020 seeking for stay of Annexure P/1 order dated 03.02.2020, whereby the Board of Directors of the 4th Respondent-Bank was suspended by the 2nd Respondent, is put to challenge in this appeal preferred by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners.
2. The factual sequence, as pointed out by Shri Prafull N. Bharat, the learned counsel for the Appellants, is that the Appellants were elected as the members of the Board of Directors of the 4 th Respondent-Bank, who took charge as the President/Chairman and Members of the Board on 06.06.2016. The normal tenure of the Board is for a period of ''five'' years and while they were discharging their duties as above, a show-cause notice was issued proposing supersession under Section 53(1) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1960'') raising four different allegations/charges against them. The Appellants submitted detailed reply pointing out that two of the four allegations/charges were of the period when the Bank itself was under the acquisition, which was prior to the election/taking charge by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners. In respect of third allegation/charge, it was pointed out that, it was on the request of the President of the Society that a Committee was constituted and irregularity to the tune of Rs.80,73,091/- was found out and special audit was caused to be done by the Deputy Registrar; adding that after getting the report of the special audit, further action would be taken. In connection with the 4th allegation/charge, it is stated that it was on the persuasion of the Collector, that the amount of insurance (Fasal Bima) was deposited in the farmers'' account, in which the Board of Directors had no involvement. Despite the explanation given, the 2nd Respondent passed an order of suspension on 03.08.2019; simultaneously appointing a Committee to manage the affairs of the Bank. The said order dated 03.08.2019 was put to challenge in Writ Petition (C) No.2958 of 2019. When the matter came up for consideration on 29.08.2019, no interim order of stay on suspension was granted, but for making it clear that no order shall be passed as to the ''supersession'' of the Board. The above writ petition is still pending and the interim order continues.
3. While so, yet another show-cause notice was issued raising almost similar averments/allegations and seeking for explanation of the Appellants/Writ Petitioners. On receipt of the said notice, the position was explained in crystal-clear terms; despite which, a new suspension order was passed on 03.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) allegedly pending steps for supersession of the Board under Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960. This is stated as nothing but a total abuse of the process of law and hence, is sought to be interdicted by filing another case-Writ Petition (C) No.636 of 2020, with the following prayers :
''10.1 That, the Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction of appropriate nature quashing/set aside the impugned order dated 03/02/2020 (Annexure-P/1) in the interest of justice.
10.2 A Writ, Order or Direction of appropriate nature directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner and restrain the respondent state from suspending the petitioners in the interest of justice.
10.3 That the petitioners may kindly be allowed to function as members of the board of the bank, in the interest of justice.
10.4 Any other relief which the Hon''ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.
10.5 Costs be awarded to the Petitioners.''
4. Along with the above writ petition, I.A. No.01 of 2020 was filed, which came up for consideration on 14.02.2020 and after hearing, the following interim order was passed therein :
''Mr. P. N. Bharat with Mr. S. S. Baghel, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrito Das, Additional AG for the State.
Petition is admitted for hearing.
Mr. Amrito Das accepts
