HtGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRIT PETITION N0.4152 OF 2004 PETITIONERS ^ 1 Anupam Sahakari Grihrt Nirman Samiti Maryadit, a registered Cooperative Housing Society, having its office at 1- 39, Anupam Nagar, Raipur through its Director Shrimati Anjali Devi, W/o. Shri Rakesh Vaishnav, aged 41 years resident of Baijnathpara, Raipur. 2. Shrimati Anjali Devi, W/o. Shri Rakesh Vaishnav, aged 41 years, resldent of Baijnath para, Raipur. 3. Khalil Ahmed Anshari,Member/Ex- PresidentS/o Shri S.M.I. Ansari Aged about 64 years, R/o House of Kamal Sharma Country Club, Kachana Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 Smt. Shila Sonl, Member/Ex-Director W/o. Shri R.B. Soni, aged about 40 years, R/o Kundarapara, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 5 Smt. Asha Tripathi, Member/Ex-Director W/Q Shri J.L. Tripathi, aged about 32 yeara, R/o Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 6 Shri Mohammad Aslam, Member/Exr Director S/o. Mohd. Qayuum, aged about 34 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Raipur Tah. And District Raipur (C.G.) 7 Shri Somdutta Sitha, Member/Ex- Director, S/o Shri I.D. Seetha, Aged about 62 yeare, R/o, Bal Ashram, Jait Road, Raipur Tah & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 8 Shri Flroz Hussain, Member/Ex-Director S/o Shri Kurban Hussain, Aged about 64 years, C/o Mohd. Ali Rajab Ali, Baijnathpara, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 9 Shri Vidhan Chandra Mishra, Member/Ex-Director, S/o Shri C.P. R4ishra, Agsdabout55 years, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 10 Shri Sharad Shukla, Member/Ex- Director, S/o. Shri R.K. Shukta, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Ganjpara, Banstal, Raipur Tah. And District Raipur (C.G.) -2.- RESPQNDENTS 11 Shri Mohd. Abdul totam, Member/Ex- Director, S/o Shri Mohd. Abdul Salam, Aged about 64 yeare, R/o. Near Shining Tailors Raja Talab, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur(C.G.) 12 Shri Anit Dhruwa, Member/Ex-Director, S/o Shri Ganesti Singh Dhruv, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Mohadapara, Rajpur Tah. And District Raipur (C.G.) Vs. 1. The DeputyRegistrar of Cooperative Societies Raipur 2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societios, Raipur. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Co-operative Societies, Mantralaya, DKH Building, Raipur. 4. J.P. Mishra, Cooperative Inspector, Department of Cooperative Soceties, Ralpur, Dlst. Ratpur. 5. Shri L L Rayast, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Near District Cooperative Central Bank, G.E. Road, Raipur. ^ Present: Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Pradhan forthe petitioners. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned GA for theState/respondents 1.2and3. Mr. N.K. /^rawal, learned Sr. Advocate wilh Mr, Deepak Gupta, tearned counsel forrespondent No.5. ORALORDER (Passedon 13'" January, 2006) In this wrlt petition, the order made by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 53 of the 00 Gooperative Socleties Act 1980 (for short 'the Act') superseding the eommittee of management of Anupam Shakari Griha Nirman Samiti Maryadit, the petitioner No. Iherein, has been challenged. The impugned order is appeatable order under Section 77 of tha Act. Amongst other grounds, basic ground of attack is that the impugnedorder has been passed by the Registrar of the Cooperative -i.' ^. -%- \. /• Society in utter violation of principles of natural justice and without notice. This plea taken by the petitioner is squarely denied by the respondent- authorities by filing reply and as per the respondents, before passing the Impugned order notlce was sought to be served on all the members of the committee of the management and flve of them were not avallable for service and therefore, they took steps of serving the notice by sub- service. This specific averment made in the reply of the respondent- authorities is again squaroly dsnied by the petitioners by filing rejoinder. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is a factual controversy with regard to very issuance of notice and service of notice on the petitioners. Be that as it may, it is brought to my notice that in ihe absence of stay granted by this Court, the Adminlstrator appointed by the Registrar has been in the management of the petitioner society for the last 21 months. Looking from that angle also, there is no warrant fbr this Court to undertake resolution of disputed facts, particularly, with regard to service of notice on the affected interest before passing the impugned order. Apart from rasoMng the issue relating to merit of the mattar, it is needlessto state that the remedy available under Section 77 of the Act by way of appeal is more comprehensive and effective than the remedy that may be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appeltate authority coutd go into the questions of fact as welt as questions of law. In that view of the matter, 1 dismiss the writ petitionresen/ing liberty to the petitionera to work out their legal remedies by way of appeal under Section 77 of the Act. All the contentions raised by the parties in their rcspactive pleadings filed in this casa are teft opon to be agitated before the appellate authority. If the appeal is preferred by the petitioners within one month from today under Section 77 of the Act, the appellate authority "^- shall hear and dispose of the appeal on meritwithout referertce to the limitaBon. Nocoste. Sd/- Chief Justice