Disposed¶33

Rakesh Kumar Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2024WPC/801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 801 of 2024; Rakesh Kumar Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh & others; writ of mandamus; execution of order of C.G. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2021 dated 24.12.2021; reinstatement; back-wages denied; Dy. Registrar order dated 15.07.2020 restored; Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Senwar/Dagori; WPS No. 494 of 2022 pending, stay of para 30; direction to conclude execution proceedings within three months; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; disposed 04.03.2024; cooperative society service dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the authority concerned (the Executing Court) to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; petition disposed of with the aforesaid observation(s).

Rakesh Kumar Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Registrar of Cooperative Societies / the executing authority to decide the petitioner's execution application (Annexure P/7) of the Tribunal's order within a stipulated period.

¶21

Court's answer

The State's contention founded on the pendency of WPS No. 494 of 2022 was misplaced, because the first appellate authority had challenged only the remarks made against it in the Tribunal's order dated 24.12.2021 and not the order on merits, being unaggrieved by the final outcome of that order.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Since the Tribunal's order regarding reinstatement of the petitioner remained uncomplied with, the authority concerned, i.e., the Executing Court, is directed to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 801 of 2024) disposed of by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), on 04.03.2024. The petitioner, whose reinstatement had been directed by the C.G. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2021 (order dated 24.12.2021), whereby the order dated 20.11.2020 was set aside and the Dy. Registrar's order dated 15.07.2020 was restored (back-wages denied), sought mandamus for disposal of his pending execution application. Rejecting the State's objection based on the pendency of WPS No. 494 of 2022 (in which the first appellate authority had challenged only the adverse remarks and not the merits of the Tribunal's order, and where the operation of para 30 stood stayed), the Court held that contention misplaced and directed the Executing Court to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 801 of 2024

¶5

Rakesh Kumar Rajak S/o Shri Dilharan Lal Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post- Senwar, Tahsil- Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Registrar Co-Operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, In Front Of Collectorate, Old Composite Building, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, In Front Of Collectorate, Old Composite Building, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Manager, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Senwar District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6. Manager, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dagori District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr. Pritam Singh , Advocate
For the State	: Mr . Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

0 4.03.2024

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar, Cooperative societies Raipur, C.G. (Respondent no. 2) to decide the execution application (Annexure P/7) within period of one month, in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an order was passed by the

¶24

C.G. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2021 on

¶25

24.12.2021 and in that case the petitioner was the appellant. The appeal was partly

¶26

¶27

allowed and the order dated 20.11.2020 was set aside whereas the order passed by the Dy. Registrar dated 15.07.2020 was restored. There was a specific order concerning the reinstatement of the petitioner whereas the back-wages were denied by the tribunal. He would further submit that the application moved by the petitioner for execution of the order passed by the Cooperative Societies Tribunal has not been complied with; therefore, he would pray that a suitable direction may be issued to the Joint Registrar to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time frame.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that in para 31 of the order passed by the tribunal dated 24.12.2021 there is certain observation against the first appellate authority and a petition was filed by that authority wherein the effect and operation of para 30 where the authority was directed to submit its response, has been stayed. He would further submit that in that petition the petitioner was also a party and notices were issued to other respondents including the State. He would also submit that the WPS No. 494 of 2022 filed by that authority is still pending.

¶29

Heard counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

The first appellate authority had challenged the remarks made against it in the order dated 24.12.2021 whereas the authority had not challenged the order on merits. The said authority was not aggrieved by the final outcome of the order dated 24.12.2021, therefore, the contention made by learned counsel for the State is misplaced.

¶31

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts that the order was passed with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner and till date the order has not been complied with, therefore, the authority concerned i.e. the Executing Court is hereby directed to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

¶33

With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

$iddhant

Rakesh Kumar Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonu @ Suraj Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonamati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balmukund Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagat Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxman Vs State of Chhattisgarh