kra- »^fiir^w ^,^,«r IH THE HIGH CQ'UW OP OTBICM'SEE &£ BIIASPUR (G.@) WSST PEg3El:Otf?MQf?s•wwt. Psfcitio^rs I^/s.Barsinglal agsa-fral and Seas tbroagb •the Proprietor Shrl Narsiaglal Agrawal, zesiaeat: of Khalragarh Bada, 3'awabar Nagar» Raipar, a'ahsl.l and Bls-tEiefe aaipur (M.P) —7- Kgispead^ffiS 1. •^ ^^' ^p^\ 3. •^ •^' t.P.&ajya SahkaEi Vipanaa Haryadit, Jahasgir ' - bad, Bfa©@al. The Registrar, ee—epera-tiveSeciefc3.es, Chha-fc-tlsgasfa, Ralpar. The Dep'aty fiegis-fcrar. GQ-operatlve Societies* Raigarh (C.©) WR3'B£:PST:ttX®H^Vtt)Sa,&BSrCI>E';.:!22S!,?'22T.OB'!T®TaE'?%®BST33'W» TIQtf?;©r-ISffiIW:36'e)B'i::i:£St aE':^W"&P&RfflSS:]£SES^WRI®/%a3 Q'U'BK'-'^Btasesi@s^sse. •fv.-.. u^n.i 'u ><,1<F . >!P fl HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRiT PETITION N0. 625 OF 2001 Versus M/'s, Narsinglai Agrawal & Sons M.P. Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadrt & Others WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA (SB : Hon'bfe Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Smt. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawver for the State. !»» (Passed on 20th day of Ju!y, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to order-dated 19/3/2001, whereby the Additionai Registrar, Cooperative Societies remanded back the matter to the Deputy Registrar, Raigarh to reconsider the jurisdiction and time limit. In view of the facts involved in the case, it was further directed to consider and dispose of the matter within a period of 3 months. The facts in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that on the application made by respondent No.1 against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,38,542.95 ,wlth interest thereon, the Deputy Registrar by order dated 13/6/1994 dismissed the case holding that the applicant/plaintiff M.P. Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit, being State levet institute, the Court of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction. Thus, the original application/plaint was returned. Thereafter, on 12/11/1999, the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, M.P. further remandecf back the matter to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Socleties, Raigarh for resolution of the dispute. The present impugned order was passed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, C.G. holding that the question ofjurisdiction may be reconsidered by the Deputy Registrar. •>1.1 '• ,,r :1-:-T"-^ -r'. •"<s:<. ;8i:l li "fc^y .^^^ 5. 6. 7. In view of the facts involved in the case and particularly on the basis of legal issues raised by the parties, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the application has been returned by the order dated 13/6/1994, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Raigarh, the impugned order passed by the Registrar would not serve any purpose. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wtthout any foundation, as the appiication is not thrown physically out of the offlce, as the same can be restored pursuant to the order of the Additlonal Registrar. By impugned order, the Additional Registrar returned back the file for fresh consideration. It means that the originai file has been restored and accordingiy under Article 227 of the Constitution, there is no irregutarity, perversity or illegaiity in the order passed by the Additionai Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 19/3/2001. For the reasons mentioned herein above, without expressing any opinion on the merit or the case, the impugned order is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. The peiition is dismissed. Since the proceeding has been stayed by order dated 6/4/2001, the Deputy Registrar, Raigarh may resume the proceeding and decide the matter as directed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, C.G. within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ' There shall be no order asto casts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Ashok