^-\ff^[^ SEyft| E pCSe^3:» Ci !N THE HON'BLE HIGH COLIRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT • BILASPUR fC.G.') WRIT PETITION rc.1 ^O. ^^t/% OF 2010 PETITIQNERS •t' .^•' ^ ^%€/ ^••Mf ^ / :f •\a/ y7 ^,- .--»«— 1. Uderam, aged about 75 years, S/o Khusru, Upadhyaksh Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kishungarh, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 1. Smt. Rohani Bai, aged about 48 years, Wife of Santosh Chandrakar, Upadhyaksh Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kishungarh, ' R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Salikram, aged about 65 years, S/o Kuliram, Upadhyaksh Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kishungarh, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Hariram, aged about 60 years, S/o Akhla, R/o Village Somnapur, Post Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5. Gaukaranram Jaiswal, aged about 42 years, S/o Sevaram, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, Drstrict Kabirdham (C.G.) •k. D /' RESPONDENTS 6. Deyalal, aged about 45 years, S/o Vaderam, R/o Village Pendrikhurd, Jahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) /7. Gopal Chandrakar, aged about 35 years, S/o Lakhanlal, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) /8. Srrit. Hemlata, aged about 42 years, D/o Ramswaroop Netam, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^9. Smt. Vina Devi, aged about 48 years, Wife of Shri Mohanlal Chandrakar, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^iO. Baijnath Chandrakar, aged about 65 years, S/o Bhuvanlal, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS ' 1. Stqte of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary Cooperative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipui'- (C.G.) y2. Registrar Cooperative SQCieties, Raipur (C.G.) ' 3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kabirdham, Tahsil and DistrictKabirdham (C.G.) /4. Shri R.S. Nayak, aged about 40 years,S/o not known, Sahkarita Visfcar Adhikari, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.(^.) 5. Seya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kishnugarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Through: Shri Prashant Chandrakar, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Visheshwar Lal, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District kabirdham (C.G.) ,6. Shri Prashant Chandrakar, aged about 40 years, S/o Visheshwar Lal Chandrakar, President Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kishungarh, R/o Village Kishungarh, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR WRITS. ORPER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.3648 OF 2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Uderam SOthers Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State' Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 1 dayof December,2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 9-7-2010 (Annexure - P/1) has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as prescribed under the provisions of Section 53 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"). Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the fact asto whether the service has been received or not is not clear, but the fact remains that the show cause notice was issued 'granting 7 days time to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. ..^ssss^•'^>. ^; ^ ^' .Sf Gowri Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 & 6 adopts the contention made by the petitioners. Be that as it may, the law is very clear that no order under Section 53 (1) of the Act, 1960 can be passed without complying with the provisions of Section 53 (2) of the Act, 1960. Even otherwise, there is a provision of appeal against the order under Section 77 of the Act, 1960 whereunder, the petitioners may very well approach and establish the fact that they were not served with the show cause notice, before the Appellate Authority, if so advised. In view of foregoing, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse of statutory appeal, which may be available Lnder the provisions of law. No order asto costs. -_ :. Sd/- 1 Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ^