Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and ors. – Respondents
WPS No.3413 of 2014
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prafull N. Bharart, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Govt. Adv., Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. K. Sandhya Rao, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not interfere with well-reasoned orders of competent authorities on the ground of limitation in writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Limitation - Cooperative Society - CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 64, Section 65, Section 77 - The court dismissed the suit, revision, and appeals of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner's challenge to these well-reasoned orders of the competent authorities in writ jurisdiction was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative society, filed a suit under Section 64 of the CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of funds misappropriated by an employee. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation, and subsequent appeals were also dismissed on the same ground.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit, revision, and appeals of the petitioner were rightly dismissed by the competent authorities on the ground of limitation. The petitioner's challenge to these orders in writ jurisdiction was without substance and was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under the CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit, revision, and appeals of the petitioner were rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation, and the petitioner had no right to challenge these orders in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as being without any substance.
ORDER :
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 19.01.09 (Annexure P-2), 04.11.11 (Annexure P-3),06.03.13 (Annexure P-4) and 25.02.14 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent authorities dismissing the claim of the petitioner as being time barred.
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the CG Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and engaged in the business of banking. It also deals in purchase and sale of minor forest produce through its subsidiary society namely L.A.M.P.S. Respondent No.4 was working as a Lower Division Clerk under the establishment of the petitioner and during the course of his service, he withdrew a sum of Rs.62,176.25 as advance on various dates. However, he deposited a sum of Rs.9,498.90 only. Hence a notice was issued to respondent No.4 for depositing the remaining amount and on his failure, a show cause notice for initiation of departmental enquiry was issued to him. Accordingly, departmental enquiry was conducted wherein respondent No.4 participated and the enquiry officer found the charges proved against him. Having concurred with the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 29.2.2008 terminated services of respondent No.4 vide Annexure P/1.
3. On 3.3.2008 a suit under Section 64 of the CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the Act of 1960”) was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 on the ground that respondent No.4 had obtained various advances and has not accounted for or deposited Rs.52,677.35 despite issuance of several notices and therefore, a decree along with interest be passed in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 though appeared but did not file any reply and after a lapse of one year on 5.5.2009 filed an application under Section 65 of the Act of 1960 and contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, an application under Section 78(1) of the Act of 1960 for review of the order dated 19.1.2009 was filed by the petitioner. However, vide order dated 4.11.2011 respondent No.1 concluded that since the order sought to be reviewed is appealable one under Section 77 of the Act of 1960, the review petition is not maintainable. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 77(1) of the Act of 1960 before respondent No.2 who after hearing the parties concluded that dispute is of the year 1986, show cause notice was issued on 14.9.2000 for initiation of departmental enquiry whereas the suit is filed on 3.3.2008 which is beyond the period of limitation and accordingly, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure P/4). Further, the second appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.2.2014 (Annexure P/5) holding that the orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper as the suit is clearly barred by limitation. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:
“10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 19.01.09 (Annexure P-2), 04.11.11 (Annexure P-3), 06.03.13 (Annexure P-4) and 25.02.14 (Annexure P-5) are bad in law.
10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 19.01.09 (Annexure P-2), 04.11.11 (Annexure P-3), 06.03.13 (Annexure P-4) and 25.02.14 (Annexure P-5).
10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct res. no. 1 to decide the dispute filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.
10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 1 to 3 are bad in law and liable to be set aside as the conclusion arrived at by them that the suit filed by the petitioner is ba
