C^-\ff^ BEFORE THE MQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATnSSARH AT BILASPUR C.G. U)^- W.P(c). N0/11 ^5/i PETETEONER:- 3 -^^ v-''~ .^^^ 'w^"/- ^^""" .•;"'"; s.<:;'"' ^J--^^^-""" ..-•^\>v"' VERSUS Ispat karmchari Cooperative society Ltd. Bhilainagar Distt bur9 C.6.. Through i-Manager* RSPON&ENT:- / Smrti 6rih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Smriti Na9ar Bhilainagar Tah.<& Distt. Ourg C.G. Through President. WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTCCLE 226 .227.THE CONSTETUTIQN OF IN&IA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTEORARI.MANbAMUS AND OTHER WRIT/WRITS /OR&ERS ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRJTPET!TION_(ClNa935 OF_2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Ispat Karmchari Cooperative Society Ltd. Versus Smrti Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Arjun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on this 27th day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 31 January, 2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies (for short "the RCS"), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in revision case No.R-203/10 (Smrt; Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. Ispat Karmchari Cooperative Society Limitecf), by which the revision filed by the respondent herein has been allowed, by setting aside the orders dated 16th July, 2007, 4th Augus't, 2007 & 16th August, 2010 (s/c 6th August, 2010) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (for short "the DRCS"). 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner society advanced loan of Rs.41.00 lacs to the respondent in 3 installments between 12 March, 1984 to 17 ' March, 1984. The respondent had mortgaged 14.5 acres of land in favour of the petitioner society. Thereafter, the respondent could not pay the loan installments, therefore, the said loan amount was in'5reased to Rs.5,16,76,331/- till the period of 2007. Subsequently, 6. the petitioner filed an application for recovery of the loan amount before the DRCS. In the said proceedings, an interim order dated 4 August, 2007 was passed directing not to withdraw the amount deposited in the bank. Learned counsel further submits that on 31 May, 2010 the respondent filed an application to vacate the order dated 4 August, 2007, which Was dismissed by the DRCS. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred a revision petition before the RCS. The said revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 31 January, 201 1 by setting aside the orders passed by the DRCS. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the impugned order submits that the petitioner has not produced the relevant documents before the DRCS and has obtained the interim order by suppressing material facts. In spite ofthe aforesaid contentions, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that the matter is still pending consideration before the DRCS, because no final order has been passed on the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for recovery of the alleged loan amount. Thus, this matter may be remitted back to the DRCS for considering and deciding the same on jts own merits and in accordance with law within the stipulated period. - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till then some interim protection may be granted. v\s Uown 7. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remitted back to the DRCS to consider and decide the case pending before him, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of mortgaged property (14.5 acres) and no third party interest shall be created. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the RCS is modified to the extent indicated above. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- K. AgBihotri Judge