IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 334 of 2010. Lalit Mohan Joshi, Son of Sri Ishwari Dat Joshi, Resident of Near P.W.D. Inspection Bungalow, Jeolikote, District Nainital.. … Petitioner. Vs. Almora Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Lala Bazar, District Nainital. …Respondent. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Date March 19, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1680 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has submitted that this petition may be disposed of today at the admission stage without inviting counter affidavit. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to take any action against the petitioner or his property under the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act). According to the petitioner, he had taken an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the respondent Bank under Cash credit hypothecation loan in the name of proprietorship firm M/s Joshi Enterprises, Jakhan Devi, Almora. The respondent Bank issued a notice dated 18.4.2004 under Section 13(2) of the Act vide Annexure- 2 to the petition, which was however not served upon the petitioner but the petitioner came to know about the said notice through newspaper. The respondent could not have taken any steps under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act for taking possession of the property of the 2 petitioner, allegedly mortgaged in favour of the respondent. The respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner regarding the proposed action under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Co-operative Bank cannot take any action under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the Cooperative Banks are not entitled to take any action under the Act and they cannot avail any benefit or rights under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the issues pertaining to cooperative banks are governed by specific self- contained legislations, therefore, in view of the verdict of the Apex Court in paragraph 70 of the case of Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and others [(2007) 6, Supreme Court Cases, 236,] the respondent is not authorized to intiate proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. Para 70 of the Apex Court judgment reads as under:- “70. The due of cooperatives and recovery proceedings in connection therewith are covered by specific Acts, such as the MCS Act, 1960 and the APCS Act, 1964, which are comprehensive and self- contained legislations. Similarly, for multi-State cooperatives there is a specific enactment in the form of the MSCS Act, 2002 comprehensively providing the legal framework in respect to issues pertaining to such cooperatives. Therefore, when there is an admittedly existing legal framework specifically dealing with issues pertaining to cooperatives and specially when the cooperative banks are, in any case, not covered by the provisions of the RDB Act specifically, there is no justification of covering the cooperative banks under the provisions of the RDB Act by invoking the doctrine of incorporation.” Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has fairly conceded that the proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioner in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Greater 3 Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others (supra). In paragraph 98 of the said Judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:- “98. The field of cooperative societies cannot be said to have been covered by the Central Legislation by reference to Entry 45, List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Cooperative banks constituted under the Cooperative Societies Acts enacted by the respective States, would be covered by cooperative societies under Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.” Admittedly the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 falls under Entry 32 in List II of Seventh Schedule and is not outside the purview of the State Legislature. It is also not disputed that the respondent-bank is duly registered with the Registrar Cooperative Societies under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the Case, the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act are not tenable in the eye of law. The notice under Section 13(2) issued against the petitioner and all consequential proceedings drawn under the provisions of the Act against him are liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and all consequential proceedings drawn under the Act against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Liberty is given to the respondent for proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4