Indra Bhoshan @ Indra Bhoshan Shukla Alias Ramesh Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2214 of 2026

¶3

Indra Bhoshan @ Indra Bhoshan Shukla Alias Ramesh Shukla

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ayush Chaudhary

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Intervener application has been moved by Sri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, which is taken on record.

¶12

Instructions dated 09.03.2026 sent by the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, District Unnao are also taken on record.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶14

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, District Unnao and the impugned recovery citation dated 24.01.2026 passed by the Tehsildar, which is a consequential order.

¶15

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2024 and some inquiry was instituted against the cooperative society whereafter the order dated 22.12.2025 has been passed while showing the recovery of an amount of Rs.18,43,803/-. His submission is that without affording the proper opportunity of hearing and without providing any material adversial to the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. Further submission is that the notices are stated to have served upon the petitioner though the inquiry report which was prepared, after the inquiry

¶16

WRIA No. 2214 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

is concluded under Section 66 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, has never been furnished to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has failed to understand that what adversial material is against him so as huge amount of recovery is imposed upon him. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the order impugned is hit by the doctrine of audi alteram partem and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the petitioner has been afforded the opportunity of hearing as show cause notice was issued on 29.09.2025 under Section 68 (1) of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the same was served on 08.10.2025 whereas the second notice was also sent to the petitioner on 13.10.2025 that too has been served on 16.10.2025; prior to the date of hearing. Submission is that the petitioner never turned up to cooperate in the inquiry proceedings and after considering the material against the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. Thus, submission is that no interference is warranted.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, it is apparent that the petitioner is a retired employee and recovery of amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and odd has been imposed upon the petitioner. The instructions which are placed before this Court as apparent that the show cause notice has thrice been sent to the petitioner and that too has been served upon him as track report is also appended as Annexure no.13 as well as 11 along with instructions.

¶21

When this Court examines the matter, it is apparent that notices have been sent to the petitioner but the petitioner has stated that the same has never been received by him though the track report is evident that the same has been served. This Court finds that except the issue with respect to service of notice, it is an admitted position that the copy of the material adversial to the petitioner whereupon the decision dated 22.12.2025 is based, has not been furnished to the petitioner. In fact, it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to furnish all the documents including any report adversial to the petitioner while sending the show cause notice so as the same would properly be replied by the petitioner.

¶22

WRIA No. 2214 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

In this view of the matter, the order dated 22.12.2025 is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed. Consequently, the recovery citation/order dated 24.01.2026 is also quashed. It is provided that the authority concerned shall proceed against the petitioner by fixing, date and time and by providing the copy of the material against the petitioner along with fresh show cause notice. It is further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceeding and his failure without any cogent reason before the authority, shall warrant the conclusion of the proceeding ex parte by the authority.

¶25

It is also provided that the show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner within a week along with evidence and after receiving such notice, the same shall be replied by the petitioner within further period of two weeks. The inquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of two months.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed accordingly at the admission stage.

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

March 10, 2026

¶29

Renu/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indra Bhoshan @ Indra Bhoshan Shukla Alias Ramesh Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Bhoshan @ Indra Bhoshan Shukla Alias Ramesh Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ompraksash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Shaheen Akhtar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar Mishra vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Ramesh Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Narayan Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Anil Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another