Dismissed

Jagjeet Singh v. State P.I.L. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2014CW/12664/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a shareholder challenging a revisional order quashing an inquiry report in a cooperative bank matter, ruling that the case is essentially adversarial and not suitable for PIL jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; PIL jurisdiction declined; petitioner directed to approach appropriate forum for personal grievance.

Jagjeet Singh Vs State P.I.L. and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

1 DBCWP No.12664/2012 [Jagjeet Singh Vs. State & Ors.]

¶2

¶3

D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION [P.I.L.] NO.12664/2012 [JAGJEET SINGH VS. STATE & ORS.]

¶4

Date of Order :: 12^th February 2014

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶6

None present for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Joshi} Mr. Ashvani Swami for the respondents.

¶7

<<>>

¶8

Though, ordinarily, we are reluctant to pass default orders for the absence of either of the parties but, for the facts and circumstances noticed infra, we find no reason to adjourn this matter any further when there is no representation for and on behalf of the petitioner.

¶9

In this petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation ('PIL'), notices were ordered to be issued on 17.12.2012. After service of notice and completion of pleadings, the matter has repeatedly been adjourned. On 26.08.2013, a request for adjournment was made on the ground that the arguing counsel for the petitioner was not available that day. Then, on 03.09.2013, the matter was adjourned for nobody being present for either of the parties. On 20.09.2013, again, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of petitioner and matter was adjourned for six weeks.

¶10

Thereafter, on 6.11.2013, when again the request for adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court noticed the position of record that the matter was being regularly adjourned with the request made on behalf of petitioner or the counsel for the

¶11

2 DBCWP No.12664/2012 [Jagjeet Singh Vs. State & Ors.]

¶12

petitioner; and it was enjoined upon the petitioner to make arrangement for proceeding with the matter on the next date. The order dated 06.11.2013 reads as under:-

¶13

“Request for adjournment is made on the ground that arguing counsel shall be coming from Jaipur and is not able to appear before the Court for indisposition. This matter has been regularly adjourned with the requests made on behalf of the petitioner or the counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

This matter being a Public Interest Litigation ('PIL'), it shall be required for the petitioner to make arrangements for proceeding with the matter on the next date.

¶15

Put up after four weeks, as prayed.”

¶16

However, on 11.12.2013 again, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner but the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Yet again, on 18.01.2014, nobody appeared for the petitioner but the matter was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondents.

¶17

Today again, despite waiting for long, nobody has chosen to appear for petitioner. This being a matter filed as PIL, we find no reason to adjourn the same any further.

¶18

Having gone through the record, we find nothing of public interest being involved in the matter so as to deal with this petition as a PIL. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is said to be a resident of Village Masani, Post Salemgarh Masani, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh and has asserted himself to be a Member and Shareholder of the respondent Hanumangarh Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Hanumangarh. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the validity of the order dated 10.07.2012/19.07.2012 (Annex.1) passed by the Co-operative Minister, Government of

¶19

3 DBCWP No.12664/2012 [Jagjeet Singh Vs. State & Ors.]

¶20

Rajasthan in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 [for short 'the Act’] whereby the learned Revisional Authority proceeded to quash the inquiry report dated 05.11.2011, as made by the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hanumangarh under Section 55 of the Act; and, while remanding the matter to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur, directed him to get a fresh inquiry conducted per Section 55 ibid. and to proceed in accordance with law.

¶21

When the aforesaid order (Annex.1) has been passed by the Revisional Authority in exercise of its statutory powers, we find hardly any reason to entertain a challenge to the same at the instance of the petitioner in the PIL jurisdiction. The subject matter of this petition, by its very nature, partake the character of adversarial litigation and could least be termed as a Public Interest Litigation. In case of any legal grievance remaining and in case entitled to, the petitioner is, of course, free to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings, but strictly in accordance with law. So far PIL jurisdiction is concerned, the same is required to be declined in this matter.

¶22

The petition stands dismissed subject to the observations foregoing.

¶23

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA],J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI],J.

¶24

MAMTA

Jagjeet Singh v. State P.I.L. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjeet Singh v. State P.I.L. 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

Vaga Ram and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Gram Panchayat Vs State and Ors.

Bhagwana Ram Vs State and Ors.

Nena Ram and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Umashankar and Anr. Vs State Local Self and Ors.

Shri Binjraj Ji Dhalla Soni Vs State and Ors.