Disposed

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another v. Appellate Authority Cum Joint Secretary and Others

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2019WRIC/70747/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Writ C No. 70747 of 2011 directed the Registrar to pass a fresh order on the merits of the registration of Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. within 60 days after providing opportunity of hearing to parties under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The previous order was set aside for denial of hearing. Court reserved its opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no. 2 directed to pass fresh order on merits within 60 days after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 70747 of 2011 Petitioner :- Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. And Another Respondent :- Appellate Authority Cum Joint Secretary And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Dubey,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,O.P. Singh,S.K. Rao,S.K.Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Singh,Amit Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard Sri R.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and perused the record.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs;

¶6

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13.09.2011, passed by Appellate Authority/Joint Secretary, Cooperative State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow/respondent no. 1 i.e. (Annexure 17 to the writ petition).

¶7

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing and commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 4 not to interfere with the function of the petitioners newly constituted Matsya Jivi, Cooperative Society dated 01.04.2005 i.e. (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).

¶8

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to restrain the respondent no. 5 from functioning as Secretary of the Matsya Jivi, Cooperative Society which was registered on 28.08.1965 in pursuance of the order of Appellate Authority/respondent no. 1 dated 13.09.2011 i.e. (Annexure 17 to the writ petition)."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that despite orders passed by the Appellate Authoritycum-Joint Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, till date respondent no. 2 in pursuance of order dated 13.09.2011, has not passed any order.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 04.05.2011, passed by Director Matsya/Registrar Matsya Jivi, Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was set aside by

¶11

the Joint Secretary/Appellate Authority, Cooperative Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide order dated 13.09.2011, whereby the registration of petitioners' society was cancelled only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to Matsyajivi Sahkari Samity Ltd. Mayapur-Churia, P.O. Churia Block-Laar, District Deoria. In the present writ petition Secretary of the society has been impleaded as respondent no. 5.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer to the extent that the respondent no. 2 be directed to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

¶13

We find substance in the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

Admittedly by order dated 13.09.2011, the order dated 04.05.2011 has been set aside mainly on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent no. 5 and the Director Matsya/Registrar, Matsya Jivi, Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent no. 2 was expected to pass a fresh order under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, but till date no order has been passed by the concerned authorities.

¶15

Since the impugned order dated 04.05.2011 was set aside on 13.09.2011 only on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice for not affording opportunity of hearing, therefore, it was the duty of the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 5 but he has failed to exercise his powers.

¶16

In view of above, we direct the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order, keeping in view of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by Appellate Authority within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case. It is open to the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh, speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.2.2019 sailesh

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another v. Appellate Authority Cum Joint Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another v. Appellate Authority Cum Joint Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsi Creation Private Limited and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sudhanshu Gupta Vs Smt. Komal Gupta

Pankaj Sharma Vs Aradhana Sharma

Bans Bahadur Dhangar and 37 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others