IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.] W.P.(S) No. S.^'^0 /2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: VERSUS 1. <?% .."^ >>' .^AC^.- ^y ^y ^y^-" 2. 3.^ ^ D.S. Thakur, S/o Late B.S. Thakur, Aged about 60 years, R/o YG-3, Yash Vihaar Colony, Behind Moti Nagar, Boriya Road, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Under Secretary Cooperative Department , Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Registrar Cooperative Societies State of Chhattisgarh Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'V'.fV af^I^I I^IRi- 'iirsn^T'swRi' •\ 7ET "4I<4I"1^, ®Til<4'IS,f^TRTy: ^.^..i.:^..^.^^'^1..l •3n^?TTraT(' TCtTWHf?B sn^r wNtTOFT-qprat'•? fsist TfSf^R ^i3ifilH 3D^I SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra WIoha 29-09-2011 Shri P. S. Koshy, counsel for Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, copy. hleard. This petition has been filed of memo dated 21-09-2011 (Annex has directed respondent No.3 to lod^e FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the pet conduct of affairs of the society ai consideration, and in fact, on the safne day i.e. 21-09-2011, the respondent No.2 required the petitioner to submitted that in response to the ^4 sent its reply in the year 2007, whicj 09-2011. He submits that the ha|s direction to the Registrar, Co-opei] arbitrary and no such direction coul( A perusal of memo dated ? No.2 on the same consideration c|i against the petitioner and direction| respondent No.2 to the Registra^ satisfaction. Whether the petitione( not, is a matter of consideration, report is made. Moreover, if the peli Shrivastava, J. the petitioner. ^Panel lawyer for the State on advance y the petitioner aggrieved by issuance ire P-1), whereby the respondent No.2 ioner submits that the enquiry into the d the ro!e of the petitioner is pending Ihow cause. Learned counsel further idhan Sabha Question, the department is against the spirit of memo dated 21- ite, in which, the department issued 'ative Societies to lodge FIR, is highly be issued to lodge FIR. 11-09-2011 shows that the respondent ecided that the FIR should be lodged should be issued to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies. The directi(jn, which has been issued by the to lodge FIR, is based on certain has actually committed the offence or by the appropriate authority, to whom Stioner claims that no offence committed vv ^- Xi-HC—78 ~S:S( ^i^lcl-M, STil-H'Ko, f°<<y)!yy SV^V 'f^; (TjqJ^^T) aiT^I Vf -^Ni- 'aW SIi^T WTfe; WBIWHferSD^I •z- Tumane by him, in the event, any offence is recourse to the remedy as may be the said action. However, it is exp< Societies shall act, after due mechanically on the memo issued oiji *i<ifd<fl-( •wraf •? fs%t <Rri^]< ^i sifa'T sn^r r^gistered, he would be at liberty to take ^vailable to him under the law against icted that the Registrar, Co-operative a(5plication of mind and not to act 21-09-2011. With the aforesaid observatioji, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ,