COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. Writ Petition .(Cl No. 1471/2008 PETITIONER 1 2 3 Smriti Grih NSrman Sahakari Samiti Maryadlt, Smrlti Nagar, Bhiial, A registered Co-operative Society reglstered under Cooperative Socleties Act, 1960, Represented through the eiected Prssident Rajeev Choubey, S/o Shri B.K. Choubey, Aged about 40 years, R/o Smriti Nagar, Bhiiai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Co-operatlve Society, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur. The Registrar, Co-operative Sodeties, Ralpur The Joint Registrar, Co-operative SocEety, Dlstrict Durg (C.G.) WRiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_226/227_OFJMiCQNSTITUT|ON OF INDIA Appearance: for the Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Counsei for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dvv'ivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate State/respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate appears for 6 members of the Cooperative Societies, against whom the show cayse notice was issued. He has fiied a Caveat Petition No.111/2008, which is tagged aiong with the writ petitton. ORAL ORDER (05.C'3.2008) SUNILKUIVIARSINHA.J. Heard on admission. It appears that o.n certaln grounds, a show cause notice was Issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperatjve Soclettes on 21/1/2008 and the Managlng Committee was directed to show cause as to why the supercession may not be effected under the ^^s^^' W.P.fQ No. 1471/2008 provisions of Section 53 (13) of i^e Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Adhiniyam, 1960. Against the said show cause notice, the petitioner had filed a Revision before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide Revision Case No.78(1)-119/08, but the said Revlsion was dismissed on 23.2.2008 by the said authority, who sent the matter back for disposing the same In accordance wlth lavv. Therefore, in sum and substance, thls petition is against the show cause notice issueci by the competent authority to the petltioner and other concerned persons. The iaw pertaining to the show cause notice is welt settled. it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter ot' Th& Speciai Director and Another vs. Mohd. Ghaiam Ghoisse and Another. jr 2004 m sc 206. that unless the Hlgh Court is satisfied that the show cause notlce was totaiiy non est in the eye of law for absoiute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investlgate jnto facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner shouid invariabiy be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take ai! stands highlighted in the writ petition. It has further set a caution that when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries spec'aiiy and speclfica!ly constjtuted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initjaily decide the matter and ensure that ultlmate reiief which may or may not be finaily granted in the writ petltlon is accorded to the writ petltioner even at the threshoid by the interim protection granted. Admittediy, the authority of the Assistant Registrar to issue a show cause notice u.nder the relevant provisions of Cooperative Societies Act is not under chal!enge before this Court. Therefore, on the foregolng discussions, I am not inciined to admit this petltion for hearing. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismlssed at the motlon stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^'•y^