1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9629/07 Dipendra Singh vs. Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of order : 22/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ganesh Meena for the petitioner. Shri Suresh Pareek for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the order of reference made to it by Assistant Registrar by order dated 24.4.2007 was set aside by the Tribunal. The bone of contention between the parties is as to who should control the affairs of the Multan Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Diwakari, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as `the society'). The petitioner claimed that he was elected as member of the society on 15.9.2006 and thereafter elected as its Chairman on 16.9.2006. The meeting of the general body was held on 10.3.2007 and next meeting of the general body was held on 10.4.2007. 2 Since the members of the society could not be conveyed the information about the meeting as required by Rule 30 of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, the meeting was postponed to 25.4.2007. In the meantime, one Kailash Chand Sharma who represented the other group convened the meeting of the general body on 11.4.2007. According to the petitioner, such meeting was convened without making compliance of the provisions of Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and the Rules of 2003. The meeting convened by the other group resolved to remove the petitioner and the office bearers belonging to his group and another management committee was elected in which Vijendra Singh was made Chairman. The petitioner at that stage approached the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Alwar by filing an application under Section 125(1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Act. The Assistant Registrar upon consideration of the application passed an order on 24.4.2007 whereby he stayed the execution of the resolution passed by the general body on 3 11.4.2007 and referred the proposal for rescinding the said resolution to the Cooperative Tribunal. The Cooperative Tribunal upon hearing of concerned, set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar on the ground that such order was passed without notice to the office bearers of the group which convened the meeting of its general body on 11.4.2007. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the meeting convened by the group led by Kailash Chand Sharma in which Vijendra Singh was nominated as Chairman was illegally convened and such meeting of the general body had no legal authority to remove petitioner or office bearers. Learned counsel made reference to Section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules. On the other hand, Shri Suresh Pareek, learned counsel for Vijendra Singh and the office bearers submitted that the nature of dispute that has been raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in the scope of Section 125. He referred to the provisions 4 of Section 58 of the Act and submitted that such a dispute in the scope of Section 58 can be referred to Arbitration. The Cooperative Tribunal has therefore not committed any error of law in setting aside the order dated 24.4.2007 whereby the execution of the resolution dated 11.4.2007 was stayed and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for rescinding such resolution. Having regard to the facts of the case and perused the material forming part of the record, I find that the matter went to the Tribunal on reference being made to it by the Assistant Registrar and not by way of any appeal of any of the parties. There was no challenge posed to the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar before the Tribunal. Reference was to the effect whether resolution dated 11.4.2007 should be rescinding or not. Though simultaneously, by the very same order the Tribunal also stayed the execution / application of the resolution aforesaid which obviously would be subject to final view taken by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal therefore found that the same was passed 5 without notice to other affected group, the appropriate course for it was to remand the matter to the Assistant Registrar to hear it afresh rather than setting aside the same and leaving the matter at that end. It would be therefore appropriate now to remand the matter to the Assistant Registrar while setting aside both the orders dated 23.4.2007 and 3.11.2007 with the direction that the Assistant Registrar shall hear both the petitioner and the other group led by Vijendra Singh afresh and pass fresh order as may be warranted in law and while doing so shall also consider the arguments raised by both the parties raised before this Court. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/