V^'SIS Sf ^ l^^'f.ww^- -/&-^- "'•-' " f^ c ^C 'J. <?~> /- IN THE HIGH CQURT QF^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR _W.P. (S) No^_ UlS_ QF 2010 PETITIONER ^\y'v". '^."••"YAA^ iA" ...-•"" ;: ^'—'T A l... ^;^:^'" 's*8*-"" '.u^v" Parmanand Shah, S/o. Shri Udai Shah, aged about 39 years (terminated from the post of peon), R/o. Jora Talab Behind Family Planning Office, Sipat Road, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS , :1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Departinent of Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh Mantralaya at DKS Bhawan, Raipur. -:2) Additional Regista-ar, Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh near Agriculture College, Lalbhandi, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) :3) Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh near Agriculture College, Lalbhandi, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) :4) Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh near Agriculture College, Lalbhandi, Raipur, Tehsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) :5) Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Bilaspur through its General Manager, v^^s^ ^' SSA'*.^'^ S*«"a-^6 :6) Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur near Mungelinaka, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WR1T/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. PT-— FHGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITION CS) No. 415 of2010 PETITIONERS : Parmanand Shah. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA SB: Hon'bIeShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 4. Shri D.K.Swain, Advocate for fhe respondents 5 & 6. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 29th day of Jaauary, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge. the order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/l), 17.03.2009 (Annexure P/2) and 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, respectively, whereby the case of the petitioner was dismissed on fhe ground oflimitation. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Peon on daily wages basis on 18.01.1994 at Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Malyadit, Bilaspur. His services were discontinued by order dated 12.02.2000 passed by the respondent No. 5. Thereagainst, the petitioner filed a petition, being W.P. No. 2236/2000, before the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court ofMadhya Pradesh, by order dated 8.5.2000 disposed ofthe petition directing the respondents to consider the case ofthe petitioner. Thereafler, the petitioner was taken back in service vide order dated 31.7,2000. Again, all of a sudden, the services of the petitioner alongwith similar other persons were discontinued on 1.11.20004. r^?^^fB& ,f The petitioner again filed a petition being W.P.-No. 4313/2004 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure P/4) reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to avail the altemative remedy as provided under section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960') within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was farther directed that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies shall consider and decide the case of fhe petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of filing ofthe appeal before him on merits. Since the mother ofthe petitioner fell seriously ill, the petitioner could not prefer statutory appeal within a period oftwo weeks and thus, the application, which was filed on 19.12.2006, was dismissed on the ground oflimitation vide order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/l) by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was also dismissed on 17.03.2009 (Annexure P/2). Thereaflter, a second appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.03.2009, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/3). Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4430/2009, which was dismissed on 6.11.2009 (Annexure P/5) being devoid ofmerit. The said order was challenged before the leamed Division Bench of this Court. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/l) by filing anofher writ petition. Thus, this petition. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents 2 to 4 have not decided his case on merits but have dismissed the "'•^. ..^-e? 7. same on a technical ground of limitation. The respondents 2 to 4 ought to have decided his case on merits as ordered in W.P. No.4313/2004. Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents 1 to 4 and Shri Swain, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 jointly submit that the orders impugned herein are just and proper. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of ftie order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 4, it appears that the petitioner had received the copy ofthe order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure P/4) on 31.10.2006. However, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the respondent No. 4 on 19.12.2006. It appears that the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal as the petitioner was required to file statutory appeal within a period oftwo weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy ofthe order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure P/4). Thus, his appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the appeal against the order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/l) before the Joint Registrar and thereafter, the second appeal against the order dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Joint Registrar, before the Additional Registrar, were also dismissed holding that the petitioner has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for condonation ofdelay. The conduct of the petitioner itself reflects his indolent and lethargic approach. The petitioner ought to have filed the statutory appeal provided imder section 55 of the Act, 1960 in accordance with the order dated 17.7.2006 passed in W.P. No. 4313/2004 by this Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail altemative remedy as provided under section 55 ofthe Act, 1960. Further, it was also observed fhat in the event of filing statutory appeal within a period oftwo weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthe order, the question of limitation would not come in the case of filing of appeal. The petitioner should have availed the liberty by filing statutory appeal within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. However, the petitioner failed to do so and further no application was made for extension oftime. 8. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and fhe lethargic. 9. Applying well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case on hand, the petitioner h^s not offered any explanation at all for condonation ofdelay and laches. This Court, exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction granted two weeks time, ignoring requirement of provisions of limitation by order dated 17.7.2006 in W.P. No. 4313/2004. The petitioner has not complied with the liberty granted by this Court. The orders dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/l), 17.03.2009 (Annexure P/2) and 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/3) impugned herein, are just, proper and warrant no interference. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. SATISH K. AGNMOTM Judge