Disposed

Bhagbali Dhritlahre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Aug 2023WPS/7781/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged coercive recovery order based on Lokayukt recommendation alleging violation of alternative statutory remedy. Single Bench held petition not maintainable due to existence of appeal remedy. Remitted matter to Appellate Authority with liberty to petitioner to file appeal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to Appellate Authority with liberty to petitioner to file appeal; authority directed to decide within six months.

Bhagbali Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cooperative Societies | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 7781 of 2011

¶4

Order reserved on 6th May, 2023

¶5

Order delivered on 17th August, 2023

¶6

Bhagbali Dhritlahre S/o Jeedhan Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Godadih, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Registrar Co - Operative Societies Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Bilaspur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Head Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Branch Manager Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

Lok Ayukt, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Shri Shrikant Kaushik, PL
For Respondents-3 and 4	: Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent-5	: Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶17

(CAV Order)

¶18

Petitioner through this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the legality, propriety and validity of the letter dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby respondent-3, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, coerced and compelled the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.6,27,771.20ps (rounded off to Rs.6,27,771/-), relying upon the sole recommendation of the Lokayukt.

¶19

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that petitioner was posted as Sanstha Prabandhak at Sewa Sahakari Samiti VillageMulmula. One BP Pandy, who nurtured animosity with the petitioner, made a

¶20

Wps 7781 of 2011

¶21

¶22

false complaint against the conduct of petitioner before the respondent authorities regarding some irregularities and mis-management on the part of the petitioner on 28.01.2009. On the basis of complaint, respondent authorities directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of the Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Mulmula to one Jivanlal Dhiwar, Sales Man at the Samiti. Three senior officers of the respondent authorities enquired into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Complainant again made a complaint before the ‘Lokayukt’, which proceeded ex parte against the petitioner without serving any notice to him and on 18.10.2010, it recommended to recover the amount from petitioner. On the basis of recommendation of the Lokayukt, respondent authorities initiated a suit under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar for recovery of excess sum from the petitioner. Petitioner was served with the notice of the suit on 08.11.2011. Respondent-3 without any outcome of the Suit pending before the Registrar, Lokayukt, issued the impugned letter directing the petitioner to pay the excess sum to the tune of Rs.6,27,771/-, which petitioner already deposited vide Annexure P7 on 12.11.2011. Hence this petition by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

¶23

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call the entire records from the concerned authorities.

¶24

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the letter dated 01.08.11 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no.3.

¶25

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any suitable direction directing the respondents to refund the entire sum recovered from the petitioner with an interest of 10% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment.

¶26

Wps 7781 of 2011

¶27

¶28

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the recommendation dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.5”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action on the part of respondents is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law. It is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent authorities mis-used their powers and have wrongly exercised their administrative discretion. Petitioner was never served any notice by the Lokayukt and the entire proceeding before the Lokayukt was conducted behind his back. Impugned letter was issued relying solely upon the recommendation of the Lokayukt, without there being any adverse material against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was inquired by three senior officers and not a single allegation was found to be proved. Respondents have issued impugned order for recovery of the sum without awaiting the outcome of the suit pending before the Registrar and the conduct is apparently contemptuous and undermines the authority of the Registrar. Action of respondent authorities is indicative of high handedness and arm twisting tactics. Petitioner was compelled to pay the entire sum on the threat of his facing strict departmental action. Action of the respondents is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Vs Nanu Ram Yadav , reported in (2007) 8 SCC 264.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that impugned order dated 01.08.2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Bilaspur Main Office, District-Bilaspur (for short,

¶32

Wps 7781 of 2011

¶33

¶34

‘the CEO’) is having efficacious statutory alternative remedy to file appeal by the petitioner before the competent authority and the petitioner, without following the same, has filed the instant petition directly before this Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner has never challenged the impugned order dated 01.08.2011, and the same is in pursuance of order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P5), recommendation against the petitioner made by the Lokayukt, Raipur. Petitioner has never challenged this recommendation of Lokayukt, and he cannot challenge the subsequent order. Instant writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is clear from the order dated 18.10.2010 that despite service of notice, petitioner did not appear before the Lokayukt, therefore, he cannot challenge the subsequent order issued by it. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of The State of Maharashtra and others Vs Greatship (India) Limited , decided on 20.09.2022; judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 26.08.2020, reported in (2022) AIR (SC) 4408; in case of Heeralal Sahu and others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others ; in another order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others on 25.11.2022; Order dated 05.07.2021 passed in case of WPS-2032 of 2021 ( Smt Chitralekha Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh and another ); and Order dated 19.08.2021 passed in case of WPS-2799 of 2011 ( Poonam Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh and other s);

¶36

Wps 7781 of 2011

¶37

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record.

¶39

Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court from time to time, in dealing with similar matters, consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, and a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

¶40

Madhya Pradesh High Court in paragraph-3 of its judgment in case of Ramnarayan Vs Nanda Nagar Cooperative Society , reported in 2007 CJ(MP)1426, has held thus:

¶41

“3. It is for all these reasons, the petition on all grounds is held not maintainable and is, accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 55(2) of the Act. In case, if any such dispute is filed by the petitioner under Section 55(2) of the Act before the Deputy Registrar, then in such event, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authority specified under the Act strictly in accordance with law.”

¶42

Division Bench of this Court in case of Heeralal Sahu (supra), in paragraph-5, held as under:

¶43

“In the above facts and circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the appeal to justify the scrutiny by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge relegating the Appellants/Writ Petitioners to pursue the matter by way of appeal in terms of Section 77 of the Act is quite in order and does not warrant any interference. It is open for the Appellants to pursue the remedy as aforesaid, in accordance with law.”

¶44

In this case also, petitioner directly approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, without

¶45

Wps 7781 of 2011

¶46

¶47

following remedy of appeal for apprising his grievance available to him. Thus, this Court has left with no other option except to remit the matter to the Appellate Authority reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appeal before it.

¶48

Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority with liberty to the petitioner to raise his dispute before the appellate authority by preferring an appeal. In the event of filing an appeal by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority within a period of six months by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶49

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶50

No order as to costs.

¶51

Sd/( Rajani Dubey ) JUDGE

¶52

padma

Bhagbali Dhritlahre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagbali Dhritlahre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fatte Lal Choudhari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yogendra Singh Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Smt. Anusuiya Yadav Vs Rahul Yadav

Mohan Lal Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Padmini Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh