NARENDRA SINGH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 30.4.2004 (Annexure P-3), passed by Additional Registrar of Co-operative Society, Ujjain in exercise of powers conferred upon him under section 53 (13) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short called 'Act').

(2.) AT the outset, it may be relevant to take note of the fact and indeed was also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner to begin with filed writ being W.P. No. 2081 of 2004 challenging this impugned order at Main Seat (Jabalpur). In this petition, the Main Seat (Vacation Judge) passed an ex parte interim order, dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-5). Later, on being pointed out by the State that the petition at Jabalpur could not have been entertained for want of territorial jurisdiction and the same could have been filed only at Indore being the only proper and competent Bench of the High Court having territorial jurisdiction, the petition filed at Jabalpur was dismissed on 6.7.2004 (Annexure P-8). It is with this background the petitioner now has come to this Court filing this petition and challenging the same impugned order which he had originally challenged in W.P. No. 2081 of 2004.

(3.) THIS Court cannot ignore such type of conduct of the petitioner which does not befit to the high status of senior lawyer of this Court. Since, petitioner was prosecuting this writ in his other capacity even then it was expected of from him to have disclosed the aforementioned facts at Jabalpur or he should have filed this petition at Indore. Filing of one petition at Jabalpur and later withdrawing it and again filing it at Indore on a cause well known to the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Rather it deserves to be deprecated. This Court leaves this issue at this stage with a fervent hope that such incident would not be repeated in future. Indeed, learned counsel who appeared for petitioner before me was fair enough to agree to what this Court has observed supra about filing of writ by the petition. It was a redeeming feature on his part.