IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5634 of 2008 Sri Baban Kumar Sahi, S/o-Sri Kailash Singh, resident of Village- Lakhisarai, P.O.+ P.S.- Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai, as a Chief Executive Officer of M/s Sahi Shramik Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited (registration No. 01/2002) situated at East Karyanand Nagar Lakhisarai Near Power Sub-Station (not the Proprietor) ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Mines & Geology Department,Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Mines & Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Mines, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Jamui. 5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Jamui. 6. The Certificate Officer, Jamui ……………….Respondents. ---------- Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh Advocate for the Mines Department : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha ------------ 05 20.10.2008 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the District Collector Jamui in Certificate Case No. 02 of 2004-05 against the petitioner in relation to certain mining dues for mining of sand. Pursuant to notice issued in the certificate proceedings petitioner filed his objection denying liability. He had specifically urged that the proceedings were sought to be initiated against him as an individual, whereas the mining dues pertains to a registered self-serving cooperative society. He thus submitted that the dues of the cooperative society if any could not be recovered from the petitioner in person and further that the warrant of arrest issued against the person as evidenced by Annexure-2 was wholly without jurisdiction. Sri V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the Mining Department was asked to produce original records so as to verify the assertion. Records have been produced and perused by this Court. With 2 consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The agreement in original (typed copy whereof is Annexure-3) has been produced. A reference to the agreement wherever the petitioner had signed clearly shows that he has signed as the Chief Executive Officer of M/s Sahi Shramik Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited that is a self-serving cooperative society. A reference to the requisition as made for the certificate would show from the original records that the requisition was also in the name of M/s Sahi Shramik Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited and the petitioner was shown as proprietor, thereof. Based on the said requisition the certificate was issued also in the name of the said self-serving cooperative society, showing petitioner to be proprietor, thereof. Even a reference to the order of warrant of arrest (Annexure-2) would show that the warrants were being issued against the petitioner in person, as being the proprietor of the said self-serving cooperative society. Thus, in my view, it is beyond doubt that the agreement for mining of sand was in fact and in law is between the State and the said self-serving cooperative society of which the petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer. Here, I may notice that under the provisions of the Bihar Self-serving Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 a self-serving cooperative registered under the said Act becomes a juridical person and is thus a juristic personality. It first has its members and then from amongst its members one is elected as a Chief Executive Officer. There is no concept of a proprietor of a cooperative society, inasmuch as that would 3 be an antithesis to the whole concept of cooperative. A cooperative is joining of several individuals for a common gain and thus the concept of proprietor is not for thereto. This, in my view, has been the confusion is not only with the Mining Department but also with the District Collector, Jamui. Thus, the petitioner being only the Chief Executive Officer of the said cooperative and the cooperative being in default. The proceedings were rightly sought to be initiated and continued against the cooperative, but wrongly showing the petitioner as its proprietor. It is the juristic entity, the cooperative that had the liability to discharge and the same in fact or in law cannot be fastened on the petitioner in his individual capacity. If this be so, as it is held to be so then the proceedings are against the self-serving cooperative society and the dues can only be realized against the said cooperative society and not against the petitioner in person nor any coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in person in his individual capacity. The Collector of District by the impugned order as noticed that the proceedings are against the cooperative and the petitioner is the proprietor, thereof. This is a total misunderstanding of the statute and the statutory provision in this regards. That being the situation petitioner cannot individually be proceeded against in any manner and the impugned orders are thus liable to be set aside and are set aside, as such. This would however not preclude the authority for taking all other legitimate and legal action that it would take as against 4 the said cooperative or its members collectively. Thus, the order issuing distress warrants as against the petitioner and the impugned order holding petitioner liable are thus set aside. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. The original agreement records are returned to the learned counsel for the Mining Department. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)