Sanjay Nagayach vs State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 112

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(MP) 112

2012 jk fu 252 o 2012 RN 252
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
dk;Zdkjh eq- U;k- lq‘khy gjdksyh rFkk U;k- Vh-ds- dkS‘ky
Sushil Harkauli, Ag. C.J. and T.K. Kaushal, J.
lat; ukxk;p fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk vU;
Sanjay Nagayach v. State of M.P. and others
fjV vihy dzekad 1065 lu~ 2011 ¼tcyiqj½( fu.khZr fnukad 13-2-2012A
Writ Appeal No. 1065 of 2011 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 13.2.2012

Advocates:
oh-ds- rU[kk] ‘k‘kkad ‘ks[kj lfgr vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls( iz‘kkUrflag] vij egkf/koäk jkT; dh vksj ls( vkj-,u- flag ,-ts- iokj lfgr izR;FkhZ Ø- 4 rFkk 5 dh vksj ls] eukst ‘kekZ vUrjk;d dh vksj lsA
V.K. Tankha with Shashank Shekhar for appellant; Prashant Singh, Additional Advocate General for State; R.N. Singh with A.J. Pawar for respondents No. 4 and 5; Manoj Sharma for intervener.

Headnote:¼1½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 53 ¼1½] ijUrqd nks & lgdkjh dsanzh; cSad ds funs‘kd cksMZ dk vfr‘Bku & Hkkjr ds fjtcZ cSad ls iwoZ ijke‘kZ ugha & vfr"Bku dk vkns‘k izfØ;k rFkk dkuwu dh vis{kk ds vuqlkj ugha & ,slk vkns‘k vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 14 ls 19
       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 rFkk 227 & vuqdYih mipkj dk otZu & ,slk mipkj dsoy foosd dk fu;e gS rFkk fof/k dk vkns‘k ugha gS & tgk¡ izdj.k dh dsoy ,drjQk O;k[;k dh tk ldrh gS & i{kdkjksa dks vuqdYih mipkj dh vksj <dsyuk & dsoy i{kdkjksa ds /ku rFkk le; ds viO;; & blds vfrfjä izkf/kdkjh ds le; dk Hkh viO;; gS tks vuqdYih mipkj j[krk gS & vuqdYih mipkj ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus dk vkns‘k & ,slk vkns‘k fjV vihy esa vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 20 rFkk 21
       ¼3½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼1½ & vihy dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & la;qä jftLVªkj] lgdkjh lkslkbfV;ksa ds vkns‘k ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds vFkZ esa ,slk vkns‘k ^vf/kdj.k* dk vkns‘k ugha ekuk tk ldrk & fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#) fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼iSjk 22 rFkk 23

        (1) Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 -- S. 53 (1), Proviso II -- supersession of Board of Directors of Cooperative Central Bank -- no previous consultation with Reserve Bank of India -- supersession order is not in accordance with procedure and requirement of statute -- such order set aside. [Paras 14 to 19
       (2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- bar of alternative remedy -- such remedy is merely rule of discretion and not is mandate of law -- where on admitted facts case can turn only one way -- relegating parties to alternative remedy -- only wastage of money and time of parties -- as well as wastage of time of authority who has alternative remedy -- order of dismissal of petition on ground of alternative remedy -- such order quashed in writ appeal. [Paras 20 and 21
       (3) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S.2 (1) -- maintainability of appeal -- writ petition against order of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies -- such order cannot be treated as order of ‘Tribunal‘ within meaning of Art. 227 of Constitution -- writ appeal is maintainable against order passed in writ petition.
        ‘‘"" [Paras 22 and 23

ORDER

Sushil Harkauli, Ag.C.J. 1. The appellant before us is the Chairman of the Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Panna (Madhya Pradesh). The Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar Division, Sagar, M.P., by his order dated 30.9.2011, superseded the Managing Committee/Board of Directors of the Bank for a period of one year and the Collector, Panna was appointed as the officer-in-charge.

2. The said order has been passed by the Joint Registrar in exercise of the powers conferred by section 53 of M.P. Cooperative Societies

Act 1960.

3. Section 53 (1) permits the Registrar (Cooperative Societies), in the given circumstances, to remove the Board of Directors/Committee and to appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance.

4. The second Proviso to section 53 (1) reads as follows :-

“Provided further that in case of a Cooperative Bank, the order of supersession shall not be passed without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank.” (Emphasis supplied).................................

5. The third Proviso to section 53 (1) says that if no communication containing the views of Reserve Bank of India in respect of the action proposed is received within 30 days of the receipt by the Reserve Bank of the “request soliciting consultation” it shall be presumed that the Reserve Bank of India agrees with the proposed action and the Registrar shall be free to pass such order as he may deem fit.

6. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.17059/2011 challenging the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar on the ground that there was no previous consultation with the Reserve Bank.

7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.2011 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal before the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal provided under Section 78 of the Act.

8. Certain allegations of mala fide have been made against the certain respondents, who have been impleaded by name.

9. However, because it is not necessary to go into those allegations for the purposes of deciding this writ appeal or the writ petition, therefore, those allegations are being ignored.

10. It is not disputed that the aforesaid Bank is a Cooperative Bank and consequently it is not disputed that previous consultation with the Reserve Bank was necessary before passing an order of supersession as required by the second Proviso which has been quoted above.

11. The contention of respondents is that previous consultation with the Reserve Bank had been done. For this purpose the respondents have placed reliance upon Annexure R-1 dated 2.3.2009, Annexure R-2 dated 17.4.2009, Annexure R-3 dated 3.6.2009, Annexure R-4 dated 8.12.2009 and Annexure R-5 dated 24.12.2009. All these annexures are enclosed with the return filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 3 in this writ appeal, which is supported by the affidavit of Shri Pradeep Neekhra, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, sworn on 9.1.2012.

12. The respondents No. 1 to 3 contend that through these documents Reserve Bank of India was consulted.

13. Annexure R-1 dated 2.3.2009 is a copy of the show cause notice given to the Chairman and members of Board of Directors. It is addressed to them, and its copy has been endorsed to 19 persons. The Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of India finds mentioned at serial No.13 of the person to whom copies has been endorsed.

14. The mandatory previous consultation required before passing of supersession order would mean an effective, proper and meaningful consultation, for which the consultee would require to be supplied with all relevant material by the person consulting, so that the consultee can apply its mind and form an independent informed opinion on the subject matter. A mere copy of the show cause notice without a copy of the reply, not to say of other relevant material supportin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document