Dismissed

Kamlesh v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2011CWP/21439/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Financial Commissioner's order dismissing her plea against the Cooperative Bank's shift of its branch. The Court held that the Bank acted validly via a Board resolution, and without demonstrating patent illegality, the writ jurisdiction could not interfere with the appellate authority's order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there was no merit.

Kamlesh Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.21439 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.21439 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision:18.11.2011

¶6

Smt.Kamlesh ......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary and others .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Surender Singh Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶13

The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that The Faridabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited(respondent No.4)(for brevity “the respondent-Bank”) decided to shift the Bank from its previous dilapidated building to some other building. The request of Kritika Sharma for letting out her building to the Bank was considered and it was resolved that her indicated building be hired at Rs.6,000/- per month by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank, vide duly passed Resolution dated 25.10.2008(Annexure P-5).

¶14

Petitioner-Kamlesh wife of Kamal Singh filed a petition for rescinding the Resolution(Annexure P-5), under Section 27 of The Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), which was accepted by the Additional Registrar (Admn.) Cooperative Societies, Haryana, and directed the departmental enquiry against the Branch Manager, who ordered the shifting of the building, without getting the necessary approval of the competent authority, by virtue of order dated 19.11.2009(Annexure P-7).

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.21439 of 2011

¶16

¶17

Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-7), the respondent-Bank filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh, by means of impugned order dated 19.09.2011(Annexure P-9).

¶18

Petitioner-Kamlesh did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-9), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that she has already executed an agreement dated 11.06.2008(Annexure P-1) to let out her building to the Bank at the rate of Rs.4,000/-, which was accepted by the Branch Manager, by way of letter(Annexure P-2). The letter dated 25.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) stated to have been issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under the influence of Dharam Chand, Director of the respondent-Bank, to shift the Bank in the building of Kritika Sharma in compliance of Resolution (Annexure P-5) was claimed to be arbitrary, illegal and against the interest of the Bank. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned order(Annexure P-9) in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard.

¶20

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the agreement(Annexure P-1) was executed between the Branch Manager and the petitioner, prior in time, so, the subsequent shifting of the Bank to other building in compliance of the impugned Resolution(Annexure P-5) is illegal, lacks merit.

¶21

As is evident from the record that, as the Branch Manager was not competent, therefore, the agreement(Annexure P-1) between the petitioner and the Branch Manager was illegal and without any authority. Moreover, the respondentBank is well within its domain to hire any building, in exercise of its administrative functions. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.21439 of 2011

¶23

¶24

respondent-Bank has duly hired the building of Kritika Sharma, by passing a legal Resolution(Annexure P-5) by the Board of Directors.

¶25

Above all, the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh, having considered the matter in the right perspective has negatived the claim of the petitioner, through the medium of impugned order dated 19.09.2011(Annexure P-9), the operative part of which is as under:-

¶26

“I have gone through the record of the case made available before me and given my thought to the submissions of the parties and impugned order carefully. A perusal of the record reveals that the Bank vide letter dated 20.12.2007 directed the Branch Manager for shifting of building after getting approval with regard to rent and agreement but the Branch Manager executed the agreement on 11.06.2008 and no supported resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank or the Directors of Managing Director has been produced before me whereas the appellant produced a copy of the resolution dated 25.10.2008 deciding to hire the building of Kritika Sharma. Otherwise also it is the business of the Bank and a Branch Manager is not competent to do so without any decision or direction of the Bank. A perusal of impugned order also clearly shows that the Branch Manager shifted the branch without obtaining the approval of the competent authority whereas he should obtain necessary approval from the competent authority prior to shifting the branch building. Though the Addl.RCS has held that the Branch Manager committed a grave misconduct yet he accepted the petition. Thus, it is proved beyond any doubt that the branch office shifted by the Branch Manager without the approval of the competent authority for which he was not competent and in this way he made himself liable for strict disciplinary action. The decision of the Addl. RCS is not in consonance with the result of examination of facts by him hence deserves to be quashed. The branches of a Bank hold the funds and faith of the public and it should not be shifted by an authority not competent to do so.

¶27

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal.”

¶28

At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out

¶29

any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in

¶30

Civil Writ Petition No.21439 of 2011

¶31

¶32

what manner, the impugned order(Annexure P-9) is illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this respect.

¶33

Meaning thereby, the Financial Commissioner(Appellate Authority) has recorded the cogent grounds in this context. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶34

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.

¶36

November 18, 2011 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Kamlesh v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh v. Financial Commissioner & 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

Joint Admission COMMITTEE-2011 Pec University Vs Harnoor Kaur Mann and Ors.

Jamiat Singh Palial Vs State of Punjab and Others

Birampal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mithila Verma & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Hanuman and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Subodh Verma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.