f"s<f r"/ jl^ c {/ IN THE HIGH COURT qE^JQDIC&TURE AT BIIASFOR (C.G.) W.P. No; "-/'2002 PETITIONE^S 1, y^' f^ .^.%^£^ .^^••^^ ^<:^T\':..v">' ^- ^•\^' ^'^'^ ^^•"' ^' RESPONDENTS •-^,-( t^ ^-f-^;.^ z!j'l:^ C^r^f^'-U^n C^::as Ssction G}f!^ ^t tns AC^CC^ GenQ^I $ia'i- ^r~h^'..u^g^ ^' L,...,.,^3 • k9 Kelo Vihar^ Shashkiya Karmachari Griha Nirm.an Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Raigarh (C.G.) Reg-ist-.rat-.-inn Nn. P,6Q/Q3 Through its Presidant ^gantosh Kumar Chandra C/o Shri R.P. Chandra aged about 37 years R/o Kelo Vihar Colony Raigarli (C.G.) 2. Ramchandra Kaluram Chaube aqed about 63 years, S/o K*R< Choube, Qr. No. 30/2400, Keto V-ihar Co1 ony^ Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Hemchandra Choudhary aged about 51 years» -S/o K.S. Choudhary, Qr. No. 37/1500, Kelo Vihar» Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh^ Through The Collector^ Raigarh (C-G-) 2. Principal Secretary, Depa.rtment of Revenue,- Government of Chhattisgarh^ DKS Bhawan^ Mantralaya^ Raipur (C.C.) 3) 3- Mun-icipal Comm-i ttft^-,- Raigarh y Through Commissioner- 4. Nazul Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Commissioner^ Bilaspur Division, Biiaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION QNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COKSTITOTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUAKCE OE' T3RI2S OP CERTIORARI AND MftNDAMOS ETC. WITH OTHER WRITS AND DISffiCTZOISS: - -'^::::::::^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) Petitjoner Resoondents others CORAM : Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETITION N0.2293 OF 2002 Kelo Vihar and two others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and four Present : Shri Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate witti Shri Prashant Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.K. Agrawat, Dy. Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh/respondents No.1,2,4 and 5. Shri V.R. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.3 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the intervener ORALORDER (Passedon 15TH of Febmary 2007) H.L. Dattu, CJ: The following oral order ofthe Court was passed by First petitioner is a Society. It is registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ('Act'forshort). (2) The petitioner Society in this petition filed under Articte 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is seekinga writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the orders/ reminder lettere of the respondent - State vide No.K/N.O.R^2002/6281. dated 18th July,2002 and vide No. K/N.O.R./2002/7675 dated 13th September, 2002, on the ground that the f-saS& -z- same is arbitrary, discriminatory and actuated due to mala ftdes ete. There is yet another prayer sought for by the petitfoner Society, but that prayer is not pressed at the time of hearing of this wrft peliUon by the learned Senior Counsel. (3) Leamed Senior Counsel would submft that the impugned demands made by the Collector, pursuant to the orders anddirections Issued by ttie State Government are in violation of ttie principles of natural justice. Elaborating this contention the leamed Senior Counsel would subm'rtthat before fixing the premium, ground rental etc. the State Govemment ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Society, since that has not been done, according to the tearned Senior Counsel, same is jn violation of the prindptes of natural ofjustice, arbitrary, capricious ete. (4) Per contra, leamed Deputy Advocate General sought to justify the impugned orders/ tetters of the Collector. Other leamed counsels appearing for the other parties also sought to justify the impugned orders/ letters issued by the Collector. (5) The only issue that would arise for our consideratlon is whether ttie demands made by the Collector pureuant to the order passed by the State Government are justiciable ? (6) A perusal of the letter of the Coltector woukl cleariy demonstrate that before issuing the order, the State Govemment had not afforded an opportunity of hearing. In our vlew, before fixing the premium, annual rentals etc. the aggrieved party should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing and since that has not been done Jn the instant cas®,we are of the opinion that the demands made by the Coltector pursuant to the order passed by the State Government are in violaHons of ttie prineiples of natural justice and therefore, such demands cannot be sustalned by us. \.. - 1 - (i) (") Accordingly, they require to be quashed and the matter requires to be remanded to the State Government to re-determtne the amounts payabte by the petitioner Society in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Society. Accordingly, the following: Order The second prayer sought for by the petitioner Sodety in the petition is rejected, since jt 1s not pressed before us. The letters/demands i^ued by the Ccrftector pureuant to the tetter of the State Government are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the State Govemment to redo the matter in accordance with the taw after affording an opportunity of hearing to ttie petitioner Society. All the contentions of both ttie parties are left open. (iv) Till such exercise is done by Vhe State Govemment, both the parties will maintatn the status quo as on today. Ordered accordingty. (V) Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge