® Adhikari/Samiti Prabhandak Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadiya, Kodabhat, Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir (Champa) VERSUS RESPONDENTS , Additional Registrar Co- operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. i Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Panjiyak, Sahkari Samiti, Janjgir (Champa) Ramdhani Singh S/o Late Balchand Singh Chandel, President Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadiya, Kodabhat, Panjiyak Suryawanshi, Vice President, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadiya, Kodabhat, Kramank 1048 Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir (Champa) Antram S/o Ghasiram @ 5. Shri Gulab Singh Chandel, S/o Ramdhani Singh ChandeL 6. Chandrika Prasad Anant, S/o Babulal Anant, 7. Nurshing, S/o Bodhan Singh Chandel, Respondent No. 3 to 7 Sanchalak Seva Sahkari Samiti ‘Maryadiya, Kodabhat, Panjiyak Kramank 1048 Tahsi! Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir (Champa) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4880 of 2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri P.Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 to 7. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 28‘ day of August, 2010) I. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed in Appeal Case No. 77(2)(One)11/10 (Smt. Duleshwari & Others v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Janjgir & Others) by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, against the order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Appeal Case No. 77(1)/729/In/09 (Ramdhin Singh Chandel & Others v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Janjgir & another). 2. The impugned order dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) was passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, after having discussed the merit at length and passing observation and remarks on the merit, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 to 6 have not sought permission of the appellate authority before filing of the appeal against the order passed by the Joint Registrar. On perusal, it appears that the Additional Registrar has \\\ considered the case on merit and dismissed the appeal stating the above \ / PETITIONERS Duleshwari & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur & Others. technical ground that the petitioner No. 1 o 6 were not a party before the Joint Registrar and they have not sought permission of the Additional Registrar before flling of the appeal against the order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Joint Registrar. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Additional Registrar, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to file a formal application seeking permission, admitted the appeal and has discussed the case on merit. The Additional Registrar ought to have dismissed the appeal at the threshold itself on the technical ground, as aforestated. However, afte admitting the appeal, the Additional Registrar has considered the case on > merit, thus, the appeal could not have been dismissed on the technical ground that no permission of the Additional Registrar was sought before preferring the appeal. Shri Pandey further submits that the petitioners may be permitted to file an application before i the Registrar/Additional Registrar, seeking permission to prefer an appeal against the order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Joint Registrar. ‘Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. l and 2 and Shri P.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 to 7 submit that they have no objection if the petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh appeal against the order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Joint Registrar, with prior permission of the Registrar/Additional Registrar. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein the Additional Registrar has admitted the appeal and gone into the merits of the case, but has ultimately rejected the appeal on the ground that no permission was sought by i 'the appellants therein i.e. the petitioner No. l to 6 before filing appeal. The appeal was admitted for hearing, thus, it is presumed that the permission though, not sought for in writing, was granted, the Additional Registrar, erred r \ in discussing the case on merit and dismissing the appeal, thereafter, on technical ground of non—seeking permission before filing of the appeal. Thus, the impugned order dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh appeal against the order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Joint Registrar, if so advised, with an application seeking permission of the Registrar/Additional Registrar for preferring an appeal. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs r sw- Satish K. Agnihotri j‘ S Judge Amit