BRIJ KISHORE PARASHAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this probono publico petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order of appointment of committee on 8.12.2006 by respondent No. 3 and submitted that the aforesaid committee by order dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) has been constituted to indirectly influence the result of the cooperative societies particularly of the District Central Bank Limited and prayed that the order be set aside and committee be directed not to work till finalisation of the cooperative elections and elections be directed to be conducted through election commission and enquiry be ordered about the transfers made by the newly appointed non- official Chairman on 16.12.2006.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading for filing the aforesaid petition are that initially the elections of District Central Cooperative Bank Limited Bhind were conducted in February, 2002 and one Shri Uday Pratap Singh was declared as elected President. It is further alleged in the petition that because of change of the political party, since very beginning they were trying to supersede the bank or to declare the elected persons as disqualified under rule 45 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. By order dated 23.2.2004 the committee was superseded and all the members of the committee were also declared disqualified and under section 53 sub-section (13) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1960') Prem Dwivedi, Dy. Registrar was appointed as Officer Incharge and thereafter by order dated 4.11.2004 a committee was constituted comprising with Collector District Bhind and other officers to manage the affairs of the Bank. All the members challenged the aforesaid disqualification order before M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal. The revisions were allowed by common order dated 6.1.2005 and thereafter by another order dated 5.5.2006 the order of supersession passed on 23.2.2004 was also set aside. Thereafter, again on next date by another order dated 6.5.2006 the committee was again superseded and Collector Bhind was appointed as O.I.C. Uday Pratap Singh challenged the order dated 6.5.2006 in writ petition before this Bench and the petition was dismissed as alternative remedy was available. Uday Pratap Singh filed revision before the Tribunal along with the stay application. The application for stay was rejected, against which writ petition was preferred which was finally disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to hear and decide the pending revision before 15.1.2007. It is stated in the petition that with a view to secure success of a political party in the election by order dated 8.12.2006 Annexure P-6 the respondent No. 3- Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, modifying the earlier order dated 6.12.2006 constituted a committee in the Chairmanship of respondent No. 5 in place of Collector Bhind and also nominated respondents No. 6 and 7 as Directors including four other non-official members. This order has been challenged in this public interest litigation petition on the ground that the order has been issued on political consideration and there was no justification for appointing the committee and removing the Collector, who was the Officer In charge of the bank in view of the order dated 6.5.2006. The order dated 6.5.2006 is under challenge before the Tribunal.

(3.) ON 10.1.2007 notices were directed to be issued to the respondents. The respondent-State including the respondent No. 5 has filed their return. In nutshell, the joint submission of Shri Vivek Khedkar and Shri N.K. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent-State and respondent No. 5, is that the petitioner is having no locus standi to file this petition; indirectly the process of election is being influenced; there are no pleadings in the petition about the status of the petitioner who is basically a transporter; no proof has been filed as to whether he is a resident of Bhind or having agricultural land at Bhind or anywhere is connected with the cooperative elections. It is further submitted that under section 53 (13) of the Act of 1960 the Registrar is empowered to appoint a person or committee of persons, to manage the affairs of the society. It is also submitted that this petition has been filed at the behest of Uday Pratap Singh, who was earlier the Chairman and he has challenged the order of supersession which is pending before the Tribunal. He has also filed apetition in anticipation before the learned Single Judge anticipating the nomination of respondent No. 5 and thereafter withdrew the Writ Petition No. 4850/06 on 2.12.2006 with the liberty that he will approach the State Government. Therefore, there is no public interest of the petitioner in this case.