A change of forum is a change of procedural law and operates retrospectively. Pending appeals filed prior to the amendment shall be continued in the forum available in the unamended Act, and the appeals filed after the amendment would be governed by the new law.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

The aforesaid Writ Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as common law point is involved for adjudication. For the purpose of disposal, facts pleaded in Writ Appeal No.309/2021 are being dealt with.

2. The Appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.309/2021 challenging the order dated 9.8.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3735/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the impugned order (Annexure-A/1) dated 5.7.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal (henceforth ‘the Tribunal’) by observing that the Appellate Forum is expected to take an early decision in the appeal considering the fact that the order of the Joint Registrar in favour of the petitioner was passed as early as in December, 2009.

3. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal has returned the appeal to the Appellant for being placed before the Appellate Authority in view of recent amendment brought into the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. Facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Joint Registrar dated 27.12.2019. Vide the said order dated 27.12.2019, the Joint Registrar had allowed the application of the petitioner granting the benefit of reinstatement. Though, the appeal was filed as early as on 22.01.2020, it could not be registered and it came up for registration only on 05.07.2021. Meanwhile, the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was amended vide amendment dated 14.10.2020 and a new channel of appeal was provided arising out of an order from the Joint Registrar under Section 78 (1)(b). The next channel of appeal from the order of Joint Registrar was provided to the Registrar or the Additional Registrar duly authorized by the Registrar. By virtue of the amended provision brought to Section 78 of the aforesaid Act of 1960 when the appeal of the respondent No. 2 came up for registration on 05.07.2021, the Tribunal took a decision that in the light of the amendment to the Act, the appeal henceforth would lie before the Registrar or the Additional Registrar, as the case may be, and the Tribunal as such did not have the jurisdiction subsequent to the amendment and the appeal was returned to be presented before the appropriate Appellate Authority.

5. Submission of the appellant before the writ Court was that on the date when the respondent No. 2 had preferred an appeal i.e. on 22.01.2020, the Act was not amended and the Appeal as such was maintainable before the Tribunal alone. It is the further contention of the appellant that since the appeal was preferred before the amendment, the amendment and the channel of remedy provided by way of an amendment could not be given a retrospective effect and to that extent, the order of Tribunal Annexure A/1 is bad. Reliance was placed in the matter of Videocon International Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India {(2015) 4 SCC 33} dealing with the aspect of the jurisdiction in the light of an amendment to a provision of law.

6. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

“10. Given the said factual backdrop, since on the date of registration or date of hearing i.e. on 05.07.2021, the Tribunal didn't have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal arising out of an order of the Joint Registrar. The Tribunal has rightly returned the appeal to be presented before the concerned Appellate Forum.

11. As the regards the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner, the same was passed under an entirely different contractual backdrop and where there was a set of appeals already heard and admitted filed by different petitioners, only because one of the appeals was filed subsequent to the amendment and it got dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction in the light of the amendment provision. The view o