BHAGEELA KOL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, by way of public interest litigation the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4, who has been elected as Chairman of the M.P. State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Cooperative Federation, Ltd., Bhopal [for brevity 'the Federation'] is not eligible to be elected for the said post, as he lacks basic qualifications of 'plucker' as provided in the bye-laws of the Primary Forest Produce Co-operative Society. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 had moved an application, Annexure-P/5, on 19-4-2007 for a Membership of the Primary Forest Produce Co-operative Society, Mudiakheda, District Raisen. He is possessing agricultural land on contract for the production of 'tendu patta', as he wanted to become a Member of the Primary Society. It is submitted by Shri Tripathi that the respondent No.4 is not a 'plucker' as provided under the bye-laws of the Primary Society. He was not entitled to get membership of the Primary Society, so his representation to the Federation was without requisite qualification, therefore, he is not entitled to hold the office of the Chairman of the Federation. It is submitted that a writ of quo warranto be issued against the respondent No.4 as he is not entitled to function as Chairman of the Federation.

(3.) Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri L.N. Soni, Senior Advocate have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.4 was elected as Chairman of the Federation on 23-9-2008 and as per Section 49, sub-section 7-AA of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] tenure of holding the post of an elected Chairman is five years, which has already been completed. It is also submitted that if the eligibility of the respondent No.4 to become a Member of the Primary Co-operative Society is to be examined then it is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, as provided under Section 8 of the Act who is competent to examine such a question on filing a dispute under Section 64 of the Act. It is submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed with some ulterior motive and it should not be entertained.