rA lf<' '<, 'i BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .^•3C-^ W.P.No. Of 2004. PETITIONERS ^' .^/ M^ w ^x/ ^y w^^ ^•^ 4^^ 1. Tushar Kanti Bose, President, 2. R.S. Dash, Vice-President, 3. Jhaduram (dead), Member, 4. Smt. M.K. Bose, Member, 5. Kalpana Kar, Member, 6. D.K. Rai, Member, 7. Samir Sarkar, Member, 8, Anand Bagchi, Menber, 9. Shakeel Ahmed, Member, lO.Nagrik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jagdalpur (C.G.) All 1 to 10 (except no.3) through Nagik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh). VE R SU S RESPONDENTS 1. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societ- ies, Bastar, District Jagdalpur (C.G), -^lf^ v-/ ,<^^ ^ Contd..2.. ^l') - :^"- 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Co-operative Societies, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICL^227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 w^r^r Ww s^i sft^icb ^lf^d ^^ ^NKTt^. ^Tli^Ko, f^diy^ ^T^T 'V^K a!' ^ii^^il 5h<fl^^^..'..9...'.:7>3&U^opi 'f^^T' STI^T^CTWnf^T '*i'l<?<><<i<1^^if ^ fe^ -tf^R ^'STf^W^T 26-10-2004 ffled under Article 227 of fhe mers seek to challenge the award respondent No.l whercby fhe Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Shri H.B. Agrawal, coun^el forthe petitioners. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawy, Govemment Advocate for the rcspondents. Heanl. By fhis writ petition] Constitution of India fhe pe1 dated 22.7.2004 passed petitioner Nagrik Grih Ni Jagdalpur has been supersed^ It has been mentioned ^n para 5 ofthe petition fhat ^aiast the impugned order fhe peti^ioners made a rcpresentatfon before the Director, Co-opexative ^ocieties on 18.8.2004, copy of fhe same is axinexirre P-6, but th^it has not been decided. Learaed Goveniment ^dvocate argued that m view of the provisions of Section 77 (p.) (iu) of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereijiafter referrcd to as <tibe Act") the ioipugned order is appealal3(le and the petitioners are entified to file an appeal before fhe St^te Govemment. Thereforc, altemative remedy was available to jtiie petitioners but they haws not preferred fhe appeal before f|ie State Gtovenament, Learaed counsel for jflie petitioiiers subiiritted that if fhe petidoiiers will Jfile aa appea|l, fhen period of liaiitation will come m fheir way. w^? / T~ XI-HC-22 ^n^r'^T f^N'^n^r 9b^Ict» ^I^a (r Barye/sunlta h .^y^? ^5[ ^FTI^R, "^ft^H^, ^dwy 3TT^T 45(<sb a* WWTT 5b^icb ^.W..:..p....3.3..^..<^ 200 ^^T' ^n^T ^<TT^R ^rf^n ^ 2--^ coilnsel Haviag heard leanied to fhe facts aad circuinstaaces the provisions of Section 77 (1| entitied to file an appeal befor^ alteniative remedy is available have filed aji appeal before the| above, fhe writ petition is t|< petitioners are allowed to ffle today before the State filed wifhin Iwo weeks fix>m decide the same on its own merill Wifh fhe direction aforesatd Consequentiy, M.W,P,I^ 7165/2004 also staxid disposed| Certified copy as ^r rules| Goveram(snt t^day; ckt^fa41^ tFI^il^fe^ <Rl;f$K ^ ^t^PT 3?j^??j for fhe parties, having regard >fthe case and fhe fect fhat as per (iii) offheAct the petitioners arc fhe State Govemment, fherefore, o fhe petitloner aad fhey ought to State Govenunent In view of fhe ot xnamtauiable. However, the ILEI appeal wifhin two weeks froni |snt If so advised, if fhe appealis fhe State Goveniment shsffl ts in accordaxice wifh law. {d, the petition staixds disposed of ).2957/2004 and I.A. No. lof. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tft^ ^F<a<-t