^ /yyx ^•^sy1- w^cy' •a3"^'^ 119 THE H3SH e©B'BT©S-JITBIGATTOBE AT BXIASTBR WO:T PETITISN H®.J.£)2-S ®p2083 Siiraj aanar Pandey. aged about 32 years, S/o ^iri. ladramanl ^arma» CleA* dlasahakari^^^l^ Bank Maryadi'6, 1 ,Bilaspur <o8), Bssiden't af Bllaspar. ®»hslland filstrlet j Bitasi»ur . ' ' . : ' ! :, •;; VE'SS.'S'EBefES A N D Jotn't Kegistrar, i SabalEari Sansthayat , Ahattisgarh, Eaipur (©s). ffie Bepaty Reglstrar, Sdtakari sansibayen, Bilaspur (C©) Ala Sahakal-i iteadEiya Baak Maryaelit,Btlaspwr througte its gbairmaR • The Gsieral Manager/^hlef Exacufcive Officer, Zi.la SabalEari Kendriya Baak Marya<ai't» Head ©fgice, Sllaspur tes). SS'EE13:©NCTIBER ARTleLBS 22S/227 ®PfflE (SeRSSI'EWGCflN ! i HI@H CQURT QPCHHMTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNd; 1023 of 2003 Petitioner. Suraj Kumar Pandey No. 1 aud 2. Versus Respondents: Joiat Registrar & others Sia^e Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justiee|Safcish,K. J!gniBoti''i. Shri Rakesh Mohau Pandiey, Advocate for the petitfoner. Shri Pankaj Shriyastava, Panel lawyer for the Respondents Shri S.L. KUIHU, Advocate for the RespondentsNo. 3 aiid4. ORALORDER ; ( 14{11 Februaiy, 2006) The foUowing orderoffhe Goiutwas passed by Satish K. Agnthotri, J. 1. The present petition iiled underArtfcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India s^ks a dircctiDn ^aiast the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to comply wifh fhe order dated 27.3.1998 (ABuaexure P/8) passed by the KespondentNo.2. Thc Respandexits N6. 3 anff 4 being aggrieved by ttie order dated 27.3.1998, filedarevisiDa. before the Respon&ent No. 1 which was dismissed vide order 12.6.2002 (Aiuicxure P/11). 2. Leamed counsel, appearing for fhe Respondfiiits No. 3 and subinits fliat tbe Respondeiits Na. 3 aad 4 haye already revision before fhe CoQperatiye 1'iibunal at Bli&pal on 2002 (Anxijexure R/ll). Thereafter under Sectipn 781 of Chliattisgarh Cooperative Speiety '(Amendmeiri} Adhinyaitt, fhfi power ofrevision against tttebrderQf'fhe >Jouit'Re@.strar'llasi dated Bted 16th 30Q3J y: .wffla? 'fi 1 r 1 been vested in the Stete Govemment of Chhattisgarh or the Regista-ar, Cooperati.ve Societies, Chtiattisgarh. Leamed cozmsel furfher subinits that the petitioner has ah-eady participated in the proceedings before fhe Cooperative Tribunal at Bhopal as he has ffled a caveat before the Tribunal.It appears that fhe revision pendiag before fhe Cooperative Tribunal at Bhopal has been transferred to fhe Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chliattisgarh at Raipur. 3. The petitioner has deUberately conceated the above stated facts fhat fhe revision has been filed against the order of the Joint Registrar. The petitmiicr lias filed fhis petition|seekiag compliance of fhe order dated 27.3.1998 passed by the Depuly Registrar, Cooperative Societi.es, Bilaspur which was afBnued by the Joiat Registrar vide order dated 12th June, 2002. 4. The petitioner has uot coine with clean hands before this Court, Even otherwise fhis pettdon is not inaiiitainable when the altemative reinedy, avaUable has been exercised by the |athe:r side, iinpugning the order Qf the Deputy Registrar, which was confiniied by the Joint Registrar, 5. For fhe reasons stated above this petition is dismissed with eost, quantified tobe Rs. 3000/-. Sd/- SadsK K.iAgmhotri Judge • Thakiir l:i -——-'wxsstassSissSi