Khemchand Parasar vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

He is heard on admission. Petitioner an employee of District Cooperative Central Bank filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against his suspension order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against a FIR, he filed W.P. No. 1207/2012, in which this Court passed interim relief that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. By placing reliance on Annexure-P/1, it is submitted that one of the reason for placing the petitioner under suspension is lodging of the said FIR. Shri B.M. Patel submits that since an interim relief is passed by this Court and coercive action is prohibited, suspension order could not have been passed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Petitioner is an employee of cooperative society. He has a statutory, efficacious and alternative remedy under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to assail the aforesaid order. Petitioner has not chosen to demonstrate/plead in the petition as to how this writ petition is maintainable against the Cooperative Society. The petitioner was required to plead and place the material to show the element of control of the Government i.e. administrative and financial on the respondent-society. The administrative domination and control of the Government should have been pleaded by the petitioner to bring the respondents within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. A special bench (5 judges) of this Court in 2007 (3) M.P.L.J. 594 [M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation and others Vs. Madan Lal Chourasia] held as under:

On a reconsideration of the facts as placed before us, we hold that since the year 2001 when the Federation took the impugned decisions to compulsory retire its employees, the Federation was financially, administratively and functionally dominated or controlled by the Government and that such domination or control is pervasive and, therefore, the Federation is ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as per the law laid down in the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra).

In the present case, there is no pleading, which brings the cooperative society within the jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of any such material, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. Since, I am not entertaining this matter because of aforesaid two reasons, I do not propose to deal with the merits of the matter and contention of Shri B.M. Patel regarding the validity of suspension order. Petition is not entertained for the reasons stated above. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy in accordance with law.