@ H é‘oRf OF -éHHATT:|sG‘RI-I§r BILASP ‘IG u A uR w r RIPEI-z( ) mblka Smg anravans S/o Late Shrl Chatur Slng Chandravanshl aged about 38 years Vice Chairman of th Chhathsgarh Rajya Sahkan Krlshl Avam Gramln kas Bank Marayadlt Raugun istrictRaipur ((.G. > TTIONER I Stae o Ch ar rou ecretary epartmen o ooperatrve Mantralaya S hawan RalurCG h ocrere omp rstr Coeraiv al _ lveanand vek and Nagar owk Distri etltlon r . A tate/re H wf'TITONc No i7395/201oi A h Chdhl h_ e ‘ I V TahSl! and \D T)§ ‘ vet _ 1 t f ha gh thgh " S, Dt f C DK ‘ B p() 2 Te Sts Cle ‘ I Regalr opte Rp Vk h ct ‘ i p!er M S lSsp I v. _ ' WT RI PEI:‘ TITON(C ) No.7395l201 0' ORDER 1 5.1 2.201 i UNIL S KUMAR SINHA, J r mlss § € z Petltloner - Amblka Slnh Chandravanshl Is Vice Chairman of th hh‘athsarh Raa Sahkan Knsh/ Avam ram/n Vlas Bank arya/t Ralpur B way of this wrlt etition he has challenged te vahly o J otice dated 1O 08 2010 and subseuent r mmders exenin e ae or fl|In rel to the said notice (nnexure coeclve r Sanay K Agarwal learned counsel appeanng on behalf o he petitioner argue th 'nd h abov rounds th notlc sent h petitioner Is no malntialale efr d t nb He rered to the deCISIon renered In the matter of M/s rounds raised In the noice are no enable g t t t Siemens Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and others 2006 AIR SCW K l , 60. 38 A perusal of the notice (Annexure P/1) would show that It I f s lmly erative a' show SOCIetIes cause Act notice 1960 (hereinafter Issued under referred Section to 53(13) as “the of Act C G 19603 Co B rals ng various grounds the Registrar Cooperative SOCIetIe hhattlsgarh has called upon the petitioner to show cause and fle hi eplon the grounds raised In the Impugned notice the SQecIal Director and Another vs Mohd Ghula house and another JT 20041 SC 206 te ureme our held a nless the Hih Court Is satlsfed that the show cause noice was oall urlsdlctlon of e auorit o even nvestlate Into facts writ petitions should not be enterained fo he mere asklrl and as a matter of routine an te writ petiioner soul on est In the ee o law or asolute w n y f f b a t g t r t g d h t hd s I g g n d k ? nvarlaby tands hih be lihted directed In the to writ respond petitio to the show cause notice an tae a ln the resent case the notice has been Issue uner ection ) o the Act 11 960 which ives authority to the concerne egistrar o Issue § n p h be otice under the said rOVISIons It Is not a case tat the notice can sa be dt f h thty to id to bad In law for absolute want of jurisicion o te auori e h d t ven Investigate Into facts or the notICe whic may be terme as non es 2 ( 0) :1 i 41 I I : % Head on admn g e Cg jy G k Md y p h dt f n q tdg th dts f g py A P/1) lltly z? M j f t d at a on te e g e e to te t x Sp op ] y ‘ s C s t I ‘ ryl l n m G , () h Sp Ct thit u g t tty " I th thy p d d S 53(13 f g d R t a I l I I t 1 t I 5 z .1 WRIT PETITION (C ) NO7395I200 upreme our e ta we cause ssued by MunICIpaI Corpora Ion or recovery of cess fro ‘ ‘ in M/s Siemens Ltd (Supr, he ppellant a multl location company on g ound of Import of goods fr actory outsrde munlcrpal Ilmlt shows that the statutory authority h lready applled Itsimrnd and has formed an opinion as regards the IIa rIotherWIse of th ,appellant the writ petition would be mamtamable e same tlme It was held that ordinarily a wrlt petition would not ntelrtalned In the matter of show cause notice unless the same Inte y l ppearsto have bee wrthoutjunsdlctl ‘ L ‘T le he writ petition therefore Is liab t d hby o e dismisse and Is ere 'e erty to " pp ach he, ' petltloner’ would be at lib 3 @J Ct hld ht hn w f m a) t sh' gca o f as a bIIIX ' o At ‘th be” 'e r: a on . gainst i a hm.