GANPATI PATEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on grant of ad-interim writ.

(2.) BY filing this writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order, dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure P-3), passed by State in exercise of power under section 52 (4) of M.P. Co-operative Society Act whereby the State has appointed Collector of the District as Chairman of Board of Directors of Bank called "Khargone Zila Sahakari Krishi AurGramin Vikas Bank" (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank'). The petitioner who claims to be a Chairman of the Bank has felt aggrieved of the aforesaid order and has filed this writ. According to Pititioner the impugned oder has resulted in his ouster from the post of chairman of the bank without following the due procedure prescribed for his removal. It is also contended that impugned order is passed due to change in Government i.e. on account of political vengeance. The State is noticed. According to State, the need to issue impugned order arose because the Bank had been suffering losses as is clear from mere perusal of the impugned order which gives facts and figures of the accumulated losses. It is, therefore contended that a case under section 52 (4) of the Act on facts was called for so far as Bank in question is concerned to safeguard the interest of State which has invested substantial money in the Bank as per requirement of section 52 (4) ibid.

(3.) IT is not in dispute, nor any attempt was made to dispute by the petitioner that what is mentioned in the impugned order against the Bank is factually incorrect. In other words, it was obligatory upon the petitioner who claims to be a Chairman of the Bank to plead and prove that there was no case made out on facts for invocation of power under section 52 (4) of the Act by the State and that whatever facts are mentioned in the impugned order are contrary to record of the Bank.