NARENDRA SINGH Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as permanent Manager in the Brayne Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Rewari, District Gurgaon (hereinafter to be called the Bank). He was dismissed from service by the order of the Administrator of the Bank, dated 22.7.1968 (Annexure G). Against this order an appeal was filed before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 68 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act , which was also dismissed by the Joint Registrar by his order, dated 6.9.1968 (Annexure J). The petitioner was informed of this order by the letter (Annexure K), dated 14.9.1968. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner on 19.10.1968 challenging the impugned orders Annexures 'G', 'J' and 'K'. The petition was admitted on 20.1.1969.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, that the present writ petition cannot proceed further and has to be dismissed as having abated under Section 58 of the Constitution (Fortysecond Amendment) Act, 1976. It is contended that under clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, as amended, no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained if alternative remedy had not been availed of by the petitioner. Under clause (2) of Section 58 of the Amendment Act, even if a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was admitted, which if filed after the enforcement of the Amendment Act could not be admitted, the same shall abate. So far as the present petition is concerned, the petitioner was entitled to file a revision petition under Section 69 of Co-operative Societies Act before the State Government against the decision of the Joint Registrar dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Admittedly this remedy was not availed of by the petitioner before filing the present writ petition. In these circumstances the present writ petition cannot proceed and has to be dismissed as having abated.

(3.) Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon State of West Bengal v. Jyotsna Bhowmik and others, 0 81 CalWN 514, in support of his contention that the writ petition once having been admitted before the amendment of the Constitution, the same can be heard on merits even if alternative remedy had not been availed of. This decision is, however, not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therein the only question was whether clause (5) of Article 227 of the Constitution, which was enforced as a result of the amendment of the Constitution, was prospective or retrospective in operation. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed as having abated because the alternative remedy was not availed of by the petitioner.