,<-a: t^ -<9 "*"./ 75;.,,'^ SSSISi HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH ^ BILASF syggay i!'*i.'_""S' SBSaS^"%S E =tSi'=st f^StSS^ f%,s!a ^S^i. y i j-t 11 i IUN NU. zsas ur '&w PETiTIONER Uday Raj . Parakh, S/o Shri Mangatchandji Parakh, about 46 /ears, K/O <j.t. Koaa, Kajnanagaon,. Tehsil & District Rajnanclgaon, onnait'sgain.  > versus RESPONDENTS 1. The Reyistrar, Co-operative Societies, IsQsrh, RaiQur. Dlstriot R^iDur (CG)i. 2. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ohhattisaarh Rainiir District RaJDur ^ttisgarh, Raipur, Distriot Raipur 3. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajandgaon, Distrlct Rajnandgaon (CG). 4. Managing Director, Zila Vanopaj 'hakari Maryadit, Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Bastar (CG). 5. Managing Director, Chhattisyarh Vanopaj V/yapar Avam Vikas Sahaka" yangn Maryaast, Kaipur (Cu). 6. Conservator of Forest (General Manager), Jagda'pur Forest Range, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG). Cvvrit petitlon under Article 226/227 or the Constitution of India) Sinflle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. :- Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Amnd Dubey, Panel Lavvyer for the State. /passed on fhis 18 day of Dccember, 2008) By this petition, fhe petitioner chailenges the legaliiy and vaiidity of the order dated 27-4-2005 (Annexure-P/1) passed by t'ne Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Second Appegl No.77 (2) (t) 28/04 (Managing Dlrectot', Ziia Vanopaj Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Sukma & others vs. Uday Raj Parakh). in ^ 2) The brief facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of the case, are that tender noticedated 22-8-1995 forsale oftendu ieaves of!ot No.1522 namely, Kukanar Soclety of South has been issued by the respondent authorities, In the tender notice, there was a condition precedent that the tenderer will take the deiivery of the tendu leaves on 'as Is, 'where Is' basis. However, it is adrnitted that the petitioner, after inspectlon or the fendu leaves submitted the tender. It was rnentioned In clause 3 of the tender agreement that the petitioner has inspectea the tendu leaves in godown to his satlsfaction and having safisfied with the articte, he submitted the tender for purchase of the tendu ieaves. 3) After obtaining deiivery" of tendu leaves twice, t'ne petitioner did not obtain the delivery, thus after adjusting the security amount, It was ciii'ected to recover an amount of Rs.5,89,934.65 from the petitloner. 4) Being aggrieved, the petitioner fiied a case in t'ne Court of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societles, Rajnandgaon, "which vvas dismissed by order dated 31-3-2001 (Annexure-P/6). Thereafter, the i3etitioner fiied first appeal in the Court of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, which was allowed by order dated 6-8-2004 (Annexure-P/7). Thereafter, the respondent authorities filed second appeal in the Court of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, which was allowed by the irnpugned order dated 27-4-2005 (Annexure P/1 ) and set aside the order dated 6-8-2&04 passed by the Joint Registrar. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27-4-2005 the petitioner 'nas fiied this petition. 5) 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is clear that the Registrar, Cooperative Socleties, Raipur, has considered ail the aspects of thte-matter in detaii ana the reasoned order. It is not a case of the petitioner that the resporiderits have ct'ianged any of the conditions ofthe tender agreement at their own after avifarding the tender in favour of the petitioner. 1 do not find any error or irregularity in the saiu order. Thus, the order dated 27-4-2005 (Annexure-P/1) is unex'ceptionabie, just & proper and does not warrant any Gown 3) This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction una'er Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself frorn interfering with t'ne order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, iliega!ity, irreguiarity or jurisdictional ef'ror K writ iarge on the face ofthe record, v/hich te not In the present case. 7) in view of the foregoing reasons, this Vi/rit petjtion is dismlssed. Sd/- sateh K. Agnihotri Judge