PRAVESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these petitions are arising out of similar orders and involving similar facts, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 5535/2012 :

(3.) MRS . Nidhi Patankar, learned Government, on the other hand, supported the order. On a specific question from the Bench, she submits that the impugned order, Annexure P -1, is passed in exercise of powers under Section 55(2) of the Act. She submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed because of availability of alternative remedy. In addition, it is submitted that in the selection/appointment of petitioners due procedure was not followed. An enquiry was conducted in which it was found that no agenda was prepared showing financial status of the society, yet the appointments have been made. Shri M.K. Trivedi, who is said to have issued an authorisation letter from camp Dabra, did not issue any such letter. It is submitted that as per record, the aforesaid letter of Shri M.K. Trivedi is not found and, therefore, it reveals that no representative was appointed in the selection process whereby the petitioners were appointed. It is submitted that entire selection process was vitiated. Therefore, the impugned order is rightly passed. She submits that on Dayaram's complaint decision was rightly taken. It does not warrant any interference. She relied on a State Government Notification dated 26.7.1999 to submit that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is competent to exercise powers under Section 55(2) of the Act.