Dismissed

Obaidulla Sk. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC27 Jul 2026WPA(P)/593/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation seeking cancellation of irregular appointments in Birampur Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Court held illegal appointments constitute a 'dispute' under the Co-operative Societies Act. Court refused to interfere, directing petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with a direction to approach the appropriate forum for alternative remedy.

Obaidulla Sk. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

27.07.2026 rpan/ 13

¶2

WPA (P) 593 of 2025 Obaidulla Sk - Versus State of West Bengal & Others

¶3

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Kiron Sk, Mr. Sayed Hossain, Mr. Jamiuddin Sk … for the Petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar, Ms. Puja Sonkar … for the State/Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Subhajit Panja ... for the Respondent nos. 8 & 9.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (in short, "PIL") seeking a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to initiate a full-fledged enquiry into certain appointments made in the Birampur Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said Samity"), a co-operative society, and to take immediate steps to cancel such appointments if found to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the statutory provisions.

¶7

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the said Samity appointed certain employees without following the prescribed procedure for recruitment. Referring to certain representations made by the petitioner along with others to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, he submits that no advertisement was published and/or displayed at any place inviting applications

¶8

¶9

from eligible and intending candidates for the posts. No written examination or viva voce was conducted. The President and the Secretary of the said Samity appointed their own men to certain posts in the said Samity. He submits that public interest is involved in the matter and, since irregularities have been committed in making appointments to certain posts in the said Samity, immediate intervention of this Court is warranted.

¶10

Mr. Panja, learned Advocate appearing for the said Samity, submits that the dispute is covered by the provisions of Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 (in short, "the 2006 Act"). He further submits that the present petitioner was a member of the Board of the said Samity and continues to be a member of the Samity. He argues that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶11

In reply, Mr. Chatterjee submits that illegal appointments made in the said society do not come within the purview of the term "dispute" as defined under Section 4(25) of the 2006 Act. He further submits that, since the petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy, he has been compelled to present the writ petition in the form of a PIL before this Court.

¶12

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the State respondents.

¶13

Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record.

¶14

¶15

The word "dispute", as defined in Section 4(25) of the 2006 Act, encompasses civil disputes, which may include illegal appointments made in a co-operative society. Moreso, an illegal appointment in a co-operative society squarely falls within the wider ambit of a dispute touching upon the management, affairs, governance, and/or administrative business of the co-operative society. Such an appointment may also affect the members of the society personally. Therefore, the involvement of personal interest in the present case cannot be ruled out.

¶16

For these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶17

However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law.

¶18

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶20

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

Obaidulla Sk. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obaidulla Sk. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

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

Gautam Ghosh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Safiya Hasan, Repd. by Her Father Sk. Tabrikul Islam Vs Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Secretary and Anr.

Union of India Vs Sandip Maity @ Maiti

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Administration and Airport Vs Ajay Kumar Gond and Ors.

Nuruddin Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sujay Bandyopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.