THE HONOURABLE Dr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] WRIT [CASE NUMBER] 15-06-2017 [ENTITY] and 17 others[CASE NUMBER]Petitioners 1[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY], Cooperative Department, Represented by Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri [ENTITY] Counsel for the respondents: Special Government Pleader from Additional Advocate General Office <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: [PRECEDENT] 3 [PRECEDENT] 7 [PRECEDENT] THE HONOURABLE Dr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] WRIT [CASE NUMBER] ORDER :
The petitioners (18) in number representing the elected Managing Committee of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd[CASE NUMBER], Warangal, maintained the writ petition against (6) respondents viz[CASE NUMBER],
1[CASE NUMBER] The [ENTITY], represented by Secretary, Cooperative Department, 2[CASE NUMBER] Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Chief Ministers Office, 3[CASE NUMBER] Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 4[CASE NUMBER] Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Warangal (Urban) 5[CASE NUMBER] District Collector, Warangal (Rural) and 6[CASE NUMBER] The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd[CASE NUMBER], Warangal, rep[CASE NUMBER] by its Chief Executive Officer and the prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:
to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to [CASE NUMBER]/CR-2, dated 18-04-2017 passed by the 3rd respondent under [SECTION] of [ACT] suspending the Managing Committee of District Cooperative Central Bank, Warangal for a period of six months and also appointing Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal (Rural) District as Official Administrator to manage the affairs of DCCB, Warangal and quash the same holding it as highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and consequently restore the Managing Committee of the DCCB, Warangal and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] The affidavit filed in support of the petition running in several pages is in relation to mostly reproduction of the reply given on 17[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]2017 to the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies-3rd respondent, in meeting the allegations made in the show cause notice issued by him on 15[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]2017 in [CASE NUMBER]/CR-2[CASE NUMBER] It is ultimately from those writ petition affidavit averments in referring to the show cause notice and the reply supra but for to produce to the extent necessary wherever required not of such necessity now to mention, the impugned order dated 18[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]2017 was passed by the 3rd respondent referring to the letter received from the 2nd respondent-Principal Secretary to Chief Minister dated 21[CASE NUMBER]03[CASE NUMBER]2017 and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent covered by references (2) and (3) and the show cause notice supra as reference (4) and the explanations submitted by the 1st petitioner and other petitioners in their capacity as the case may be as reference (5) and the order reads as follows:
Vide reference 2nd read above, the CC and RCS, TS, Hyderabad, who on verification of the records to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the mismanagement of the Managing Committee, had found prima facie material suggesting the violation of the provisions of [ACT], Rules, [ACT] and guidelines issued by the ANABARD and TSCAB[CASE NUMBER]
Vide reference 3rd read above, the CC and RCS, TS, Hyderabad ordered a statutory Inquiry U/[SECTION] of the Act into the constitution, working and financial condition of Warangal DCCB, while appointing Sri [ENTITY], Additional Registrar/Chief Auditor as Inquiry Officer[CASE NUMBER]
Vide reference 4th read above, notice was issued U/[SECTION] of the Act calling upon the Chairman of Warangal DCCB and Managing Committee, Warangal DCCB, to explain why the Managing Committee of Warangal, DCCB, cannot be suspended U/[SECTION], while appointing the Official Administrator for Managing the affairs of Warangal DCCB[CASE NUMBER]
With reference 5th read above, the Chainman of Warangal DCCB and members of Managing Committee (Board) of Warangal DCCB, submitted explanations to the notice issued[CASE NUMBER] The Registrar examined in detail the explanations submitted and found them to be not satisfactory[CASE NUMBER]
The Registrar has come to a conclusion that the Board of Warrangal DCCB, committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the Cooperative Society and its members and the Board is also negligent in performance of its duties[CASE NUMBER] The Registrar has also come to a conclusion that continuation of the Board is prejudicial for conducting a thorough and fair inquiry into the working of the society[CASE NUMBER] The MD of TSCAB i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] the financing bank of Warangal DCCB is also duly consulted in this matter as required U/[SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER]
Therefore, by virtue of the powers conferred under [SECTION][SECTION] of [ACT], I, the Registrar hereby order suspension of the Board (Managing Committee) of Warangal DCCB for a period of 6 months and I hereby appoint the Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal (Rural), District as Official Administrator U/[SECTION] of the Act to manage the affairs of Warangal DCCB[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the relief in impugning the proceedings supra dated 18[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]2017 is that there is a statutory violation of the mandatory requirement of the compliance of [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short the Act) amended by the [ENTITY] in G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]53 dated 20[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2016 and the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside but for maintaining writ petition there is no efficacious alternative remedy[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER] The Special Government Pleader from the office of the Additional Advocate General representing respondents filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the 3rd respondent in meeting various averments covered by the show cause notice and the reply referred supra and in saying in relation to the compliance of the said statutory requirement of consultation under [SECTION] of the Act that Registrar has been in constant touch with the MD, TSCAB and GM, NABARD, TSRO Hyderabad right from the day the CMO directed him to conduct an inquiry[CASE NUMBER] Registrar held a series of meetings in this regard with GM, NABARD as well as MD, TSCAB[CASE NUMBER] Registrar appraised both the authorities about the findings of his Inquiry, while these two authorities also shared the information they have about irregularities in DCCB, Warangal[CASE NUMBER] The Registrar duly shared the details of findings of preliminary Inquiry with MD, TSCAB[CASE NUMBER] The financing Bank i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] TSCAB, is thus duly consulted, as provided under [SECTION] before ordering suspension of the MC of Warangal DCCB[CASE NUMBER] The Amendments carried out to the Act, vide G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]53, while adopting the [ACT] to the [ENTITY] are as per the provisions of [ACT][CASE NUMBER] The petitioners should have approached the Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad which is catering to the whole state of Telangana since the Cooperative Tribunal at Warangal is not functioning[CASE NUMBER] Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad is competent to adjudicate this matter U/[SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] The allegations to the contra in the affidavit under reply are false, baseless and the same are hereby denied[CASE NUMBER] For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders in the above Writ Petition and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper[CASE NUMBER]
5[CASE NUMBER] Before answering the compliance is made or not, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, for there is a statutory appeal remedy under [SECTION] of the Act, which is even efficacious and cannot be said that not an efficacious alternative remedy[CASE NUMBER] The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in meeting the same is that once there is a compliance of statutory violation of the consultation required, the writ petition despite the alternative remedy, leave about efficacious alternative remedy is maintainable[CASE NUMBER] For that, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in State of Mandhya Pradesh v[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied in relation to showing of there is no consultation as contemplated by law as laid down in the expression and thereby the writ petition is maintainable, the other decision placed reliance is of this Court in [ENTITY] v[CASE NUMBER] Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Peddapuram who followed the expression of the Apex Court in Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madras v[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] (AIR 1970 SC 992) that was quoted with approval by the Madras High Court in [PRECEDENT], in all saying consultation is mandatory in the absence of which, once there is a statute not followed in the impugned proceedings, writ petition is maintainable[CASE NUMBER] Besides that the [ACT] Bench of the Apex Court way back in [ENTITY] v[CASE NUMBER] Ahmad Ishaque , particularly at para-6 categorically held that [SECTION] of the [ACT] confers on High Court powers to issue appropriate writs to any person or authority within their territorial jurisdiction, in terms of absolute and unqualified[CASE NUMBER] If the High Courts are to recognize or admit any limitation on this power, that must be founded on some provision in the [ACT] itself[CASE NUMBER] It is High Court got to say absolute power but for any self-restraint as held by the [ACT] Bench of the Apex Court seven Judges Bench[CASE NUMBER] Further, though there is some appearance of the completion of the writ of Certiorari with some Mandamus directions required in the prayer, the same can be held maintainable, as same is the conclusion by a Single Judge of this Court in S[CASE NUMBER]Manikya Reddy v[CASE NUMBER]
A[CASE NUMBER]P[CASE NUMBER]State Wakf Board, rep[CASE NUMBER] by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad of even a combined relief of writ of Certiorari and writ of prohibition etc[CASE NUMBER], is maintainable, as laid down by the Apex Court in [ENTITY] (supra)[CASE NUMBER] Further even any dispute of question of fact involved, in appropriate case writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition involving disputed questions of fact, for there is no absolute rule in this regard is also laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] Ltd[CASE NUMBER] Further, the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] at para-27 categorically held that availability of efficacious alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, but for, self-restraint if any, thereby, writ petition is maintainable[CASE NUMBER]
6[CASE NUMBER] Having regard to the above, the writ petition, impugning the non-compliance of the statutory requirement of the consultation contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act, is maintainable[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] Now coming to the aspects as to whether there is a consultation or not, as one of the core contentions in the writ petition relief, [SECTION] of the [ACT], reads as follows:-
34(6) as per the [ACT]: Where a society is indebted to any financing bank, the Registrar shall, before taking any action under sub-section (1) in respect of that society, consult the financing bank[CASE NUMBER]
So far as [ENTITY] amended by G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]53, Agricultural & Coop[CASE NUMBER](co-op[CASE NUMBER]II) Dept[CASE NUMBER], dated 20[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2016 reads as follows:
In [SECTION] Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no committee shall be superseded or kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months[CASE NUMBER]
(b) The Committee may be superseded or kept under suspension in case
(i) of its persistent default; or
(ii) of negligence in the performance of its duties; or
(iii) The Board has committed any act prejudicial to the interests of the cooperative society or its members; or
(iv) There is stalemate in the constitution or functions of the Board; or
(v) The State Co-operative Election Authority specified under [SECTION] has failed to conduct elections in accordance with the provisions of the Act;
(c) by order, supersede or suspend the Committee from a specified date and appoint the official Administrator (The Registrar may after giving the Committee an opportunity of making its representations) to manage the affairs of the society, as per the conditions of service as may be prescribed, for a period of not exceeding six months:
Provided that the Committee of any such co-operative Society shall not be superseded or kept under suspension where there is no Government shareholding or loan or financial assistance/subsidy of any form or any guarantee by the Government:
Provided further that in case of a Co-operative society carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of the [ACT] shall also apply[CASE NUMBER]
Provided also that in case of a Co-operative society, other than a multi-state cooperative society, carrying on the business of banking, the period of supersession or suspension shall be for one year instead of six months[CASE NUMBER]
(d) In case of supersession/suspension of a Board, the Registrar shall appoint the official Administrator(s) to manage the affairs of such co-operative society and the said Administrator(s) shall arrange for conduct of elections by the State Cooperative Election Authority within the period specified in sub-section (1)(a) of this section and hand over the management to the elected board[CASE NUMBER]
(ii) sub-section (2) shall be omitted[CASE NUMBER]
(iii) Sub-sections (3) and (4) shall be substituted with the following, namely:-
(3) The Administrator(S) shall, subject to control of Registrar and to such directions as he may from time to time, give, have power to exercise all or any functions of the committee or of any officer of the society provided that no crucial policy decisions are taken by the Administrator(s)[CASE NUMBER]
(4) The Registrar may fix the remuneration payable to the Administrator(s)[CASE NUMBER] The amount of remuneration so fixed and such other expenditure incidental to the management of the society during the period of the supersession as may be approved by the Registrar shall be payable from the funds of the society[CASE NUMBER]
(iv) sub-section (5) shall be omitted[CASE NUMBER]
34(6) as per the [ACT]: Where a society is indebted to any financing bank, the Registrar shall, before taking any action under sub-section (1) in respect of that society, consult the financing bank[CASE NUMBER]
From a comparison of the same but for [SECTION] is omitted, there is no change so far as sub-section (6) is concerned[CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER] Now coming to sub-section (i), which is running with non-obstante clause for [SECTION] even earlier and now by amendment also with no change but for speaking about supersession or kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months or for a period of six months[CASE NUMBER] In this, one thing is clear that to permissible [SECTION] State amendment by G[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER]Ms[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER]53 supra no way amended [SECTION] and not even mentioned as a subsequent amendment saying for suspension or supersession for six months below or above, no consultation is required, much less, to say the same is as pending enquiry and in such cases if at all[CASE NUMBER] Thereby, any contention of the consultation, even contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act, not required for suspension or supersession for a period of six months or less regular pending enquiry is on its face untenable[CASE NUMBER]
9[CASE NUMBER] Now coming to the core requirement of consultation, the expression of this Apex Court in [ENTITY] (supra) referred therein of the Apex Court in [ENTITY] (supra) that was quoted with approval by the Madras High Court in P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]V[CASE NUMBER]Cooperative Agricultural Cooperative Society (supra) are not the authorities on the requirement of what is meant by the consultation, because, in all these three expressions, practically, there was no consultation however coming to the impugned proceedings, there is a mention about the consultation[CASE NUMBER] The relevant portion necessary to reproduce reads as follows:
The Registrar has come to a conclusion that the Board of Warrangal DCCB, committed acts prejudical to the interest of the Cooperative Society and its members and the Board is also negligent in performance of its duties[CASE NUMBER] The Registrar has also come to a conclusion that coninutation of the Board is prejudical for conducting a thorough and fair inquiry into the working of the society[CASE NUMBER] The MD of TSCAB i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] the financing bank of Warangal DCCB is also duly consulted in this matter as required U/[SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER]
Therefore, by virtue of the powers conferred under [SECTION][SECTION] of [ACT], I, the Registrar hereby order suspension of the Board (Managing Committee) of Warangal DCCB for a period of 6 months and I hereby appoint the Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal (Rural), District as Official Administrator U/[SECTION] of the Act to manage the affairs of Warangal DCCB[CASE NUMBER]
10[CASE NUMBER] Thus, in the impugned proceeding last page first para last three lines, there is a mention about the Managing Director of TSCAB i[CASE NUMBER]e[CASE NUMBER] the financing bank of Warangal DCCB is also consulted in this matter as required under [SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] From this also, the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings is conscious of the requirement of consultation contemplated under [SECTION] of the Act even for suspension or supersession pending enquiry, as the case may be, nothing more to repeat[CASE NUMBER] Thus whether the said wording supra constitutes consultation or not is the issue[CASE NUMBER]
11[CASE NUMBER] In deciding the same, the learned Special Government Pleader from the office of Additional Advocate General, drawn attention of this Court that there are substantial allegations showing mis-management and mis-demeanour committed by the President and Directors of the Bank and there is abundant material as referred in the show cause notice that is also reproduced in counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and there is also a sealed cover containing further facts if at all the Court to open and peruse[CASE NUMBER] As referred supra, the prayer in the writ petition is the impugned proceedings is violation of the statutory provision[CASE NUMBER] The core contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no statutory consultation as contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] As answered supra, for suspension or supersession, pending enquiry if any, even for six months, the consultation is contemplated[CASE NUMBER] Now whether the order is otherwise sustainable, if at all there is a consultation can be gone into[CASE NUMBER] In this regard, what is consultation as contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act, reproduced above of the Registrar has been in constant touch with the Managing director, TSCAB and General Manager, NABARD, TSRO, Hyderabad, right from the day of the CMO directed him to conduct an enquiry[CASE NUMBER] The Registrar held a series of meetings in this regard with G[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER], NABARD as well as MD TSCAB and the Registrar appraised both the authorities about the findings of his enquiry, while the 6th respondent also shared the information they have about irregularities in the DCCB, Warangal[CASE NUMBER] The Registrar duly shared the details of findings of preliminary enquiry with MD TSCAB[CASE NUMBER] The financing bank that is T[CASE NUMBER]S is thus duly consulted, as provided under [SECTION] of the Act, before ordering suspension of the Managing Director of Warangal DCCB[CASE NUMBER]
12[CASE NUMBER] Thus, what is referred in the impugned order of consultation to what is stated in the counter-affidavit of consultation, there is a variance, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners[CASE NUMBER] For that the learned Special Government Pleader says the impugned order need not detail all these facts as that can be stated in detail later and that what is reproduced in the counter is to be read with the impugned order for proper understanding of the statutory compliance of [SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that additional material that is not covered by the impugned order cannot be looked into, as per the [ACT] Bench expression of the Apex Court in [ENTITY] v[CASE NUMBER] The chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , where in para-8 relying upon the earlier Apex Courts expression in [PRECEDENT] held that in a writ petition including an order by statutory authority validity to judge is maintainable, that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise[CASE NUMBER] Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds, later brought out[CASE NUMBER] Thus, what is mentioned in the impugned order alone is to be considered and any development or improvement cannot be considered[CASE NUMBER] Here, one more thing to notice is that there are two finance banks[CASE NUMBER] The consultation is as per the impugned order only TSCAB[CASE NUMBER] In the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent referred supra, it is mentioned as consultation of G[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER] NABARD also, the other financing bank but the impugned order, no way refers the consultation of the NABARD, the other financing bank[CASE NUMBER] To that extent, in the absence of a provision of consulting any one of the financing banks is enough, there is practically no consultation, as laid down by the Apex Court in [ENTITY] that was quoted with approval by the Madras High Court in P[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]V[CASE NUMBER]Cooperative Agricultural Cooperative Society that was quoted with the approval by this Court in [ENTITY] (supra), suffice to say from that of there is no consultation as contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] Apart from it, even there is a proper consultation of TSCAB concerned, without leaving it to answer from several contentions raised on this aspect what is stated in the impugned order and what is detailed in the counter affidavit and what and what cannot be looked into as laid down in the expression of the [ACT] Bench in [ENTITY] (supra), no way requires repetition herein[CASE NUMBER] In fact, what is meant by consultation is well laid down by the other expression of the Apex Court in the recent past in [ENTITY] (supra) where the facts, in detail, brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that also even required in asking to be looked into, however not necessary, in deciding the core issue supra[CASE NUMBER] Now coming to the core requirement of what is meant by consultation as a principle that is applicable to all cases irrespective of the factual scenario that relevant portion of the judgment now required to be reproduced from paras-22 to 24 is as follows:
22[CASE NUMBER] We have already quoted the second proviso to [SECTION], the meaning of which is clear and unambiguous which, in our view, calls for no interpretation or explanation[CASE NUMBER] In this respect, reference to the often quoted principle laid down by [ENTITY], C[CASE NUMBER]J[CASE NUMBER] in Sussex Peerage case [PRECEDENT] is useful, which reads as follows: If the words of the Statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in the natural and ordinary sense[CASE NUMBER] Reference may also be made to the judgments of this Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT][CASE NUMBER]
23[CASE NUMBER] The mere serving a copy of the show-cause-notice on RBI with supporting documents is not what is contemplated under the second proviso to [SECTION][CASE NUMBER] For a meaningful and effective consultation, the copy of the reply filed by the Bank to the various charges and allegations levelled against them should also be made available to the RBI as well as the action proposed by the Joint Registrar, after examining the reply submitted by the Bank[CASE NUMBER] On the other hand, RBI should be told of the action the Joint Registrar is intending to take[CASE NUMBER] Only then, there will be an effective consultation and the views expressed by the RBI will be a relevant material for deciding whether the elected Board be superseded or not[CASE NUMBER] In other words, the previous consultation is a condition precedent before forming an opinion by the Joint Registrar to supersede the Board of Directors or not[CASE NUMBER]
24[CASE NUMBER] This Court in [PRECEDENT], has laid down six propositions while examining the meaning of the expression consultation[CASE NUMBER] We may add one more proposition that when the outcome of the proposed action is to oust a democratically elected body and the expression used is shall not be passed without previous consultation, it is to be construed as mandatory[CASE NUMBER] Reference may also be made to the judgments of this Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], Gauhati High Court and Another v[CASE NUMBER] Kuladhar Phkan and Another (2002) 4 SCC 524, [PRECEDENT][CASE NUMBER]
13[CASE NUMBER] Here, from the above principle of law referring to several expressions in several contexts of the issue came before the Apex Court in vividly saying what is meant by consultation that it is not a mere formality[CASE NUMBER] Further more, it is observed that mere sending of copy of show cause notice to the financing bank (therein R[CASE NUMBER]B[CASE NUMBER]I) is not suffice, as what is contemplated by the provision is a meaningful and effective consultation and copy of the reply filed by the financing bank to the various charges and allegations levelled against the petitioners should also be made available to the financing bank as well as the action proposed by the Registrar concerned and after examining the reply submitted by the financing bank also to look into[CASE NUMBER]
14[CASE NUMBER] Thus, in the case on hand, coming back to the show cause notice, it was dated 15[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]2017, the reply/explanations of the petitioners was on 17[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]2017, sending a copy to one of the two the financing banks herein if at all is only in between, however, the impugned order passed was on 18[CASE NUMBER]04[CASE NUMBER]2017 and the impugned order itself shows there is no waiting even for reply and no reply received, as had it been, it should have been referred to among the references 1 to 5 but not there[CASE NUMBER] Thus, there is no waiting about the reply received to consider the same also of the finance bank on the show cause notice sent to the petitioners can be marked to one of the two financing banks, leave about not sent copies, even taken counter-affidavit averments to writ as part of the show cause notice with no details accepting such a contention of the learned Special Government Pleader at least for argument sake, that also no way reflects the consultation, as contemplated by the expressions supra of mere consultation or held oral meetings, in the absence of written communication and receiving of written response[CASE NUMBER]
15[CASE NUMBER] Having regard to the above, it is suffice to say as laid down in the expressions supra that there is no consultation as contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act of NABARD totally and there is no consultation as contemplated and required but for the propounded consultation from the show cause notice as discussed surpa[CASE NUMBER] Thereby, the action of the respondents covered by the impugned proceedings is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and this Court need not go in detail to answer several factual aspects, though factual aspects also can be gone into as per one of the expressions quoted supra in a writ petition[CASE NUMBER] Thereby, suffice without prejudice to the contentions of both parties on the factual aspects to agitate if at all such a necessity arises and the writ petition is allowed on that point alone[CASE NUMBER] Needless to say, this order no way interdict the recourse of the respondents if at all to be taken statutorily[CASE NUMBER]
16[CASE NUMBER] Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed[CASE NUMBER] No costs[CASE NUMBER]Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed[CASE NUMBER]
Dr[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] J, Date:15[CASE NUMBER]06[CASE NUMBER]2017