hmkwogmxwv Pig wiwmHQggw <Hib r971: rrQ @Hm h Qm L 'ri m: ES“ m ”Hmukl‘ <®Hmsm .. gmé axie as e court eret. I0-4—0. 3 - gmt, Silaclmn dew 3am: Semunck Gram pnnchayat Sonesth R/o Village Km Pngt— Pateba'm Abhan - pur Dmit- Ratpur -$tale ofChhatlsGaxh TlifeughSscretary for I Autonomomus Badnes D K. Euddmg Kanpur -L:lm'am sit) RamJlSatnami aged-30 yrs ouns l petitimi'er rsq/0% Janakoo sfn Mangaroo Ram aged-36 yrs, —I’ocran sfo Mangaicm aged* 50 ym ~P1marath slo Thaggu aged-55 yrs 9:vNarayan slo 'Ihagggo aged~40 yrs. 19:~Ghagiya 310 Thaggi) aged-3'? ym, x‘) mimm m pr d 2 WWW 7 Cel w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI'LASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3035 0f 1995 Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samity Sonisili VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Registrar, CooperatiVe Socities & Others ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Shri Vinod Tekaln, Advocate for the respondent N0. 5 to 10. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 15 1 day of November, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated 25/02/1995 (Annexure P/l) regarding liquidation of the society and. further, the possession of the petitioner society and its members in the land allotted be not disturbed. 3. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner society is a registered society under the provisions of Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. There are 23 members ofthe Society and the aim and object ofthe Society is to help poor person and providing agricultural facilities to the members of the Society for which the lands are allotted to the members ofthe Society; 4. The lands' bearing khasra No.443/l, admeasuring 69.86 acres and khasra No.528/1, admeasuring 36.37 acres situated in village Sonisili, allotted to the petitioner and the entry is made in respect to the revenue records. There is no complaint made by any person against the petitioner society. In spite of the said fact, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice, the respondent authorities passed the order liquidating the society and the liquidator has been appointed Thereafter, the liquidator threatened the members of the petitioner society to return back the land allotted to them. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land was developed by the society by incurring huge expenses. The respondent authorities passed the impugned order in an illegal an'd arbitrary manner resulting into depriving the members of the petitioner society from getting the fruits of the said land. Even, no reason has been assigned by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has not filed any documents by which he has been authorized by the society for tiling the present petition, therefore, this petition is not 'maintainable. The liquidator has been appointed and aher receiving the final report from the liquidator, the impugned order was passed. Thus, the impugned action taken by the respondents is just and proper and needs no interference of this Court. From perusal of the records, it appears that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the members of the petitioner society and even, the respondents have failed to produce any documents showing the fact that before passing the impugned order, the principles of natural justice was complied with. The impugned order has been passed only after obtaining the report from the liquidator, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. It is not clear from the documents and pleadings by the petitioner that whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded, as contention of leamed counsel appearing for the State is that prior to passing of impugned order, an order appointing liquidator was passed, which was challenged and on the basis of report submitted by the liquidator, the impugned order has been passed. Be that as it may, for want of sufficient materials, it is not possible to adjudicate upon the dispute. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, the matter is remitted to the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Raipu'r, to consider all the aspects of the matter, as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for the parties and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 10. Since, the conditional status qua order was granted on 14-09-1995, whether the said order still continues or not is also not clear. Thus, if the status quo, as ordered is continuing, the same shall continue till the Registrar, Cooperative Society, takes a decision afresh, as observed hereinabove. 11. Before parting of this order, it is made clear that the aforesaid 'observation made by this Court shall not be construed, as observation on merit while deciding the case, 12. As an upshot, the writ petition is disposed of. p Sd/ Judge !K Gowri OTRI SATISH K, AéMH