SURESH PATERIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner by the instant petition is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal.

(2.) To decide the issue involved in the case, the necessary facts are adumbrated as under:- As per the petitioner, the Board of Directors of respondent-Bank (respondent No.4 herein) passed a resolution on 23.01.2019 regarding appointment of the petitioner as a Samiti Prabandhak and an order in this regard was issued on 24.01.2019, in pursuance to which, the charge has been given to the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatarpur wrote a letter on 04.02.2019 (Annexure-P/4) to the General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Chhatarpur asking to produce some record regarding the appointment of the then Branch Manager after the death of the then Cooperative Branch Manager, namely, Braj Nandan Bajpai. In response to the said letter, the Branch Manager of respondent No.2 issued an order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure-P/5) asking respondent No.5 to give the charge of Branch Manager, Seva Sahakari Samiti, Rampur. Thereafter, on 18.10.2019 (AnnexureP/6), the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Chhatarpur issued a show-cause notice to the Branch Manager of respondent No.2 asking him to explain as to under what authority he issued an order of appointment of In-charge, Branch Manager, in favour of respondent No.5. The order of the Branch Manager passed on 18.02.2019 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision under Section 80-A of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960'). The said revision was decided by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure-P/9) setting aside the order dated 18.02.2019 and maintaining the order dated 24.01.2019 whereby the petitioner in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of respondent No.4 has been appointed as an In-charge, Cooperative Manager. Thereafter, respondent No.5 challenged the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Joint Registrar, before the High Court by filing W.P. No.22439/2019, but the said writ petition was dismissed as not-maintainable on the ground that the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and to avail the said remedy, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal, finally allowed the revision vide order dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure-P/1) which is impugned in this petition on two grounds, firstly, that the Joint Registrar could not have entertained the dispute under Section 80-A of the Act, 1960. As such, the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure-P/9) was not proper and secondly, that the said order was also not proper as it has been passed by the authority considering the fact that the aggrieved person in whose favour order dated 18.02.2019 was passed had not been made party and without giving him an opportunity of hearing, the order could not have been passed and as such allowed the revision.

(3.) The petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, could not have entertained the revision in view of the provision of Section 80-A of the Act, 1960 and secondly, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that respondent No.5 was a necessary party, the order could not have been passed by the Joint Registrar without giving him opportunity of hearing and the matter could not have been remanded back directing the Joint Registrar to direct the petitioner to make respondent No.5 as a party and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, the dispute raised by the present petitioner before the Joint Registrar would be decided. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the observation made by the Tribunal in respect of entertaining the dispute by the Joint Registrar under Section 80-A of the Act, 1960 was not proper and was contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1960. He also contended that Section 80-A gives full power to the Joint Registrar to entertain such dispute and it is rightly entertained and decided by the Joint Registrar. However, he submitted that the matter could have been remanded back to the Joint Registrar for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5. He further submits that accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the petition deserves to be allowed. At the most the matter could have been remanded back to the Joint Registrar for deciding afresh.