HIGH COURT OF CafflATTISGARH AT BILASTUR Writ Petititm No. 1529 ®f2003 PETmONER : Distriet Co-opeia&w Agriculturd & Ruid Develt^ment Bank Ltd. Bilaspur through its Manager Om Prakash Agrawal, S/o Gig Raj Agrawal, aged 54 yeare, occupation Service workiag as Senior Branch Manager, District Co-operative Agriciritural & Rural Development Bank Ltf. at Bilaspur, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). VERSU8 RESPQNDENTS : 1. Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 2. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Soeieties, Chfaattisgarh, Raipur. 3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur. 4. R.G. Patel, S/o Shri PannaLal Patel, Retired Branch MsaasBt, District Cooperative Land Devehqmaeat Bank Ltd., Bilaspur, R/o Shn D.S. Patel, House No. 162, Dixi^ura, Behind the ofiice ofMishra Brothers, Jabalpur(MP). (WRTT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUraW OF INDIA) (SB: Bfon'bte Mr. Satfeh K. AanBiotri. J.V Present : Shri I.S. SsSm, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Panel Lawyef fw the State. Shri K.K. Singh, Advocate fortfaerespondentNo.4. ORALORDER (Passed on31st day ofJdty, 2008) 1. The petitioner is impugning Ifae order dated 29.032003 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societiai, CMiattisg^h, Raipuruiappeal. 2. The said appeal was Tfield by R.G. Patel i.e. iiespoadent No, 4, challenging the oider dated 22^)2.2003 (Aanexure P/2), passed t?ythe ^ ^~ 7 ^^x^' "'s^'w^st1' ';! Deputy Registrar, alleging that the order dated 22.02.2003 was passed during holidays and tfae respondent No. 4 had w> occasion to put fonvard his case, thus the order is exparte without affording an opportunity ofhearing to tfae resqrondentNo. 4 (aCT'eUaatAerein). 3. The Joint Registrar, afler having considered the facts ofthe case, set aside the order dated 22.02.2003, passed by the Deputy Registrar, on 29.03J2003 (Annexure P/3), and remanded the matter to tiie Deputy Registrar for consideration oftiie matter alresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner has challenged the said orto- dated 29.032003, passed bythe Joint Registrar, in Ais petition. 4. The eontention ofthe petitioner is that the .foint Registrar ought not to have remanded the matter before the Deputy R«%istrar,as provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act, 1963) vwuld not apply and the Joint Registrar has no power under eooperative societies Aet, to condone the delay in raising tiie dispute under seetion 55 ofthe Cooperative Societies Act, 19ft) (for shon Vae Act, 1960). 5. The impugned order was passedon ^.03.2003. Ne interim reliefstay was granted by this Court. By Ifais time, the pending case befwe the Deputy Registrai may have been considered and decided. On query, . learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner expresses inabiMty to submit in&rmation with regard to peadency oftiie case. 6. With the pass^e oftime, this petition has beeome m&uctuous as at Ifais stage, order need not be examined <m merit when the case is pending before Deputy Registrar for more than five years and the same niight have been concluded. The petitioner is not ia a posi^oa to supply ihe information with regard to status of&e matter as to whetfaer tite same -^^ i 7/ hasteeen disposed ofor is still pending. Thns, no relied can be granted attiiisstage. 7. The petotion is accordingly dismissed. No order as to eosts. 8. Consequentiy, M(W)P No. 1382/2003, aH)licati<Mi for grant ofinterim reliefi alsostands disposed of. ____ : Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu