1983 Supreme(Raj) 406

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.N.Bhargava, J.
T.N. Kaushik etc. - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Co - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 979, 1075, 983, 882 and 981 of 1983.
Decided On : 20-07-1983

A society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and financed mainly or wholly by the State Government, and controlled by the officers of the State Government in their administrative capacity, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - WRIT JURISDICTION - SOCIETY AMENABLE TO WRIT JURISDICTION - CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENT - FINANCED BY GOVERNMENT - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - NOT MAINTAINABLE - RAJASTHAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965, SEC. 75 - NOT APPLICABLE - DISPUTE NOT FALLING WITHIN AMBIT OF SEC. 75 - EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION OF COURT NOT DEBARRED - INCREASE IN PRICE OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE - JUSTIFIED - ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE - NOT BINDING - PETITIONER CAN GIVE UP CLAIM IF COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS MORE - WRIT PETITIONS DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, belonging to the economically weaker section, applied for a house under a scheme by the respondent society. They were allotted a house and became members of the society. The cost of construction of the house was initially estimated to be Rs. 29,500/- but later increased to Rs. 43,903/-. The petitioners challenged the increase in price by filing writ petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondent society was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court as it was controlled and financed by the government. The court also held that the dispute raised by the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and therefore, the petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy under that provision. The court further held that the increase in the price of construction was justified as the society had incurred additional expenses due to various reasons. The court also held that the petitioners were not bound to purchase the house if they felt that the cost of construction was more.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondent society was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court? 2. Whether the petitioners were required to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965? 3. Whether the increase in the price of construction was justified?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent society was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court as it was controlled and financed by the government. The court relied on the judgment of this Court in Hira Lal v. Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Bikaner Ltd. (1983 RLR 220), wherein it was held that a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and financed mainly or wholly by the State Government, and controlled by the officers of the State Government in their administrative capacity, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that the petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, as the dispute raised by them did not fall within the ambit of that provision. The court held that Section 75 applies only to disputes touching the constitution, management, or business of a cooperative society, and the present dispute related to the increase in the price of construction of the house, which was not covered by Section 75. 3. The court held that the increase in the price of construction was justified as the society had incurred additional expenses due to various reasons, such as the purchase of extra land for the construction of roads and drainage, the calling of tenders much after the initial estimate was prepared, the provision for drainage which was not included in the initial estimate, and the payment of conversion and sub-division charges. The court also held that the petitioners were not bound to purchase the house if they felt that the cost of construction was more.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions with no order as to costs.