DEODAS MOHANTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are a large number of Housing Co-operative Societies in the State, main of them are in the main cities of Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Raipur. The State Government has been receiving complaints about irregularities in functioning of these Societies, such as, wrongful expulsion of members, non-allotment of plots to members in spite of dues having been paid, enrolment of excessive or bogus members, corruption on the part of Presidents and other office-bearers of Societies etc. The State Government decided to arrange KHULA MANCH (open house) at various places to consider these complaints and grievances and find solution for the same. The procedure adopted is to advertise in newspapers informing all concerned about holding of Khula Manch at a particular place, invite applications from aggrieved persons, require officers of the Co-operative Department to conduct enquiries into the grievances, invite applicants and the Presidents of the societies to the Khula Manch and with the participation of contending parties, find solutions for the grievances. The first Khula Manch was held at Indore on 7-8-1994 and the next was held at Bhopal on 10-8-1994. It is said that there was tremendous response from aggrieved persons, Presidents of several Co-operative Housing Societies participated and cooperated with the venture and solutions for many disputes were found. The second -respondent, Minister Incharge of Cooperative Societies, participated in and supervised these efforts.

(2.) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 2902/94 are Presidents of the Housing Co-operative Societies functioning in Bhopal. They contend that the procedure adopted of Khula Manch is contrary to Constitution and the laws, particularly the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act), coercive power of the State was employed in the Khula Manch to threaten, intimidate and browbeat Presidents of the Societies, that the second respondent would dispose of the complaints by passing orders without any authority. In short, according to these petitioners, Khula Manch is a negation of rule of law. First petitioner also complains of illegal arrest and wrongful detention and late production before the competent Magistrate and filing of a false criminal case against him. Second petitioner, who was absent at the Bhopal Khula Manch complains that his father's presence was requisitioned by threat of imprisoning the son. The petitioners complain of humiliation and insult heaped upon them in the Khula Manch.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1, 3, 4 and 5, namely the State Government, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Commissioner of Revenue filed a joint return. Second respondent filed a separate return besides adopting the averments in the return of other parties. Petitioner filed a rejoinder to the return. Respondents 5 and 6 filed an additional return. Almost at the end of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that I. A. No. 8159 of 1994 for amendment was pending. It was allowed on the basis that the factual averments therein are to be taken as denied by the respondents. Several persons sought to intervene in these writ petitions. They have been allowed to intervene.