Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

( 2025:HHC:4168 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No.62 of 2025.

¶4

Decided on : 1st March, 2025.

¶5

Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents. Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for rep For the Petitioner:	orting?¹ Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Ajit, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
	Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶8

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Notice confined to respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 only. Mr. Ajit, learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2 ( 2025:HHC:4168 )

¶13

Notices have not been issued to proforma respondents No. 7 to 16 for the reason that their interest is with the petitioner and no relief is claimed against them.

¶14

The instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1978 ( for short “the Act”) pending before him.

¶15

The proceedings under Section 72 of the Act came before respondent No.3 on account of motion being made by respondent No.6 before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh against the decision of respondent No.5 to convene a special meeting of respondent No.6-Society on the resolution allegedly moved by 11 elected members of the Managing Committee. The aforesaid members of the Managing Committee had made a request for convention of special meeting of the Managing Committee of the society seeking removal/election of office bearers of the Managing Committee.

¶16

Respondent No.5 after seeking direction from respondent No.2 had ordered the convention of special meeting of the society on 18.02.2025. Aggrieved against

¶17

3 ( 2025:HHC:4168 )

¶18

such action of respondent No.5, the society i.e. respondent No.6 had taken recourse to Section 72 of the Act, as noticed above.

¶19

It is revealed from the records made available to this Court that a caveat petition had been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein before the Registrar Cooperative Societies apprehending challenge to the decision of respondent No.5 to convene a special meeting of the society. Respondent No.3 while entertaining the proceedings under Section 72 of the Act issued notice to the caveator through his counsel by mode of WhatsApp and email intimating the date fixed for hearing of petition under Section 72 of the Act as 17.02.2025. This intimation was sent to learned counsel for the caveator on 15.02.2025.

¶20

It is alleged by the petitioner that on 17.02.2025 when the proceedings were undertaken by respondent No.3, one Sh. C.D. Negi, Advocate, appeared before the said authority on behalf of the caveator and made a request for supply of copy of petition, but respondent No.3 without either directing respondent No.6 to supply copy of petition to the caveator or affording him an opportunity of being heard proceeded to pass the impugned order, whereby the order

¶21

4 ( 2025:HHC:4168 )

¶22

dated 07.02.2025 of respondent No.5 assailed before respondent No.3 was set aside.

¶23

The impugned order nowhere reveals that any reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the caveator/petitioner herein. This clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. No doubt, an intimation through WhatsApp and email has been sent to the counsel for the caveator on 15.02.2025, however, the same was not accompanied by the copy of petition or grounds of challenge laid before respondent No.3. That being so, the caveator/petitioner herein did not get sufficient opportunity to meet out the grounds of challenge raised by respondent No.6 by way of petition under Section 72 of the Act.

¶24

The manner in which respondent No.3 has conducted himself is clearly abrasive of the principles of natural justice and basic judicial procedure. While exercising the quasi judicial powers, it was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to have adhered to the well settled principles of judicial procedure. In the absence, the impugned order cannot be sustained as not only the order was passed on interim relief prayed by respondent No.6, respondent No.3 even proceeded to set aside the order assailed before him.

¶25

5 ( 2025:HHC:4168 )

¶26

In result, the impugned order is set aside with directions to respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh after affording both the sides sufficient opportunity of hearing strictly in accordance with law. Since, urgency is involved in the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to complete the proceedings under Section 72 of the Act before him on or before 17^th March, 2025. The convention of special meeting of the Managing Committee of respondent No.6-society, as ordered by respondent No.5, shall abide by the final decision of respondent No.3. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶28

1^st March, 2025. (jai)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Hp and 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

Similar cases

Sidharath Vs Ishwar Singh

Ranjna Devi Vs State of Hp

Satish Kumar Vs Swaran Ram (Deceased through LRs Gurnam Singh) and Others

Mast Ram Vs State of Hp

Vineet Kumar Vs State of Hp

Geeta Ram Vs State of Hp