IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay WPA 12562 of 2022 Bhudeb Mukherjee & Anr.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya : Mr. Bijoy Bag : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty : Ms. Bratati Pramanick :

For the Respondent No. 3 Mr. Ankit Sureka : Mr. Biplob Das :

For the Respondent No. 9 & 10 Mr. Dibyajyoti Raha :

For the Respondent No. 1-3 Mr. Sk. Md. Galib : Ms. Jyotsna Roy Mukherjee Judgment on : 25/07/2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

(1) The writ petitioners are the erstwhile Chairman and the Assistant Secretary in the previous Board of the Co-operative Housing Society namely “Digantika Samabay Abasoni Limited” (in short “The Society”) (formerly known as “Bidhan Co-operative Housing Society Limited) and the residents of the said Housing Society. The previous Board of the Society has operated from the year 2010 to the year 2015. During the said period, the petitioners have functioned as the Chairman and the Assistant Secretary of the said Board.

(2) Now that when the subsequent Board has taken the resolution to expel the petitioners from the membership of the Society on charges of corruption, allegedly done by the petitioners during the period when they were at the helm of affairs of the said Society, the petitioners have filed the instant case seeking redress. The petitioners have prayed for two-fold reliefs inter alia that the resolution of the subsequent Board of the Society dated January 13, 2020 may be set aside/quashed and that the letter issued by the respondent no. 6/the Special Officer dated May 12, 2021 may also be set aside and/or quashed. It is pertinent to note that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are against the respondent/Co-operative Housing Society.

(3) Therefore, before entering into the discussions as regards minutes of challenge put forth by the writ petitioners in this case, the argument relating to the non-maintainability of the instant case as advanced by the respondents, be dealt with first, as the same touches the very root of the case. In case it is a dispute between the parties private in nature as claimed by the respondents and does not really involve any public element in the same, the Court has to refrain to entertain and maintain the writ petition due to inherent lack of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, in that event none of the other points argued by the parties respectively, is required to be gone into by the Court.

(4) It is argued that the Co-operative Housing Society as above was formed with an objective primarily to establish on co-operative basis, settlements of housing schemes for members by affording each the facilities for having a house or a tenement and ultimately to develop the settlements so established into self-sufficient communities. That the objective, functioning and management of the said Housing Society are meant to serve the personal and private purposes, that being managed by the Board selected by the members and rendering service to the individuals in their private capacity only. The Bye-laws of the Society dated January 12, 1982 is referred to, which lays down the objects of the said Housing Society. That in the instant writ petition the petitioners have sought for relief against the said Co- operative Housing Society, functioning of which does not involve any public element. Hence, that the petitioners could not have moved the writ petition before this Court and the writ petition would not be maintainable.

(5) A judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Amar Kumar Malick Vs.

State of West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC Online Cal 842, has been relied on to buttress the respondents‟ argument regarding non- maintainability of the present writ petition. The Court in the case of Amar Kumar Malick (supra) has held that a member of the co- operative housing society cannot escape the Bye-laws thereof to govern him and that he would be subject to the same.

(6) The ot