BARELAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in this Writ appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected W.A. No.95/2012 (Shyam Sunder Singh Jadon v. State of M.P. and others).

(2.) THE order dated 16.1.2012 passed by learned Writ Court in W.P. No.8518/2011 has been made pivot by the appellants in this appeal which is filed under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay -peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 whereby the learned writ Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that some of the persons against the impugned order (Annexure P -1 filed in the writ court) have filed the appeal before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal and therefore, since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the present appellants also to file appeal, the writ petition was dismissed. However, it is made clear that neither any of the appellant of the present appeal or the appellant of connected Writ Appeal No.95/2012 assailed the order Annexure P -1 which was impugned before the learned writ Court by filing appeal in the Cooperative Tribunal.

(3.) IND 6ed, the contention of Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants of this appeal and Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in connected W.A. No. 95/2012 is that without going through the second proviso to Section 53(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short "the Act of 1960") the supersession was made and such a stereo -type order cannot be passed since there was no previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of India (in short "the RBI"). In support of their contention, learned counsel for the appellants have placed heavy reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court Sitaram v Registrar of Co -operative Societies and another, 1986 JLJ 656 = 1986 MPLJ 567 in which it has been held that the term "consultation" should be applied in its full magnitude which includes meaningful consultation and merely sending a copy of show cause notice to the Reserve Bank of India is not sufficient. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that indeed, the same view was recently taken by the Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1065/2011 (Sanjay Nagayach v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 13.2.2012 [published in 2012 RN 252] and this order was assailed by the State of M.P. before the apex Court. The said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.4691/2013. Learned counsel submit that the Supreme Court vide order dated 16th May, 2013 has dismissed the appeals which were filed by the State of M.P. and its functionaries by giving certain directions. Hence, it has been prayed that the same yardsticks be followed in this appeal also. Copy of the said order of the Supreme Court has been placed on record.