AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in all these three Writ Appeals filed u/s 2(i) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, are made to a common order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 6417/2013, that being so all these appeals are being decided by this common order. Elections to the primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Maryadit Rampurkalan, District Morena, was held in accordance to the provisions of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and it is seen that Shri Narendra Singh Jadon was elected as President of the said Society. However, the election was interfered with and the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bhopal, by an order passed on 4th September, 2013, exercised the jurisdiction available to him u/s 80(A) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and set aside the election. Challenging this order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Narendra Singh Jadon filed the Writ Petition in question viz. Writ Petition No. 6417/13. When the Writ petition came up for hearing, parties appeared and raised various objections. Petitioner Narendra Singh Jadon challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Registrar u/s 80A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and contended that the power has been exercised in an illegal manner particularly, when remedy of an Election Petition u/s 64 was available.
Respondents in the Writ Petition particularly Shri Maharaj Singh and others who have filed Writ Appeal Nos. 454/13 and Writ Appeal No. 453/13 supported the order passed u/s 80A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and contended that there was serious infirmity and illegality in the election and, therefore, the action is proper. That apart, they raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that against the order passed by the Registrar on 4th September, 2013, u/s 80A, statutory remedy of appeal/revision is available before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal u/s 77(14) of the Cooperative Societies Act, and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable.
Learned Writ Court evaluated the totality of the circumstances and came to the conclusion that large number of factual disputes are involved in the matter and, therefore, it would not be proper to interfere when disputed question of fact are involved and particularly, when a statutory remedy of approaching the Cooperative Tribunal u/s 77(14) was available. Accordingly, the learned Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition and issued the following directions:-
The petitioner is extended liberty to approach the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal by invoking an application u/S. 77(14) of the Act of 1960 within a period of seven days from today by filing an appropriate application/petition along with a copy of this order.
In case the above said direction is complied with, the Tribunal is expected to decide the controversy u/S. 77(14) of the Act of 1960 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the application/petition u/S. 77(14) of the Act of 1960 without being influenced by the passing of this order.
Since the petitioner is being relegated to file a statutory remedy available before the tribunal as aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Registrar in
(I) 46/2013 dated 04.09.2013., shall remain stayed.
In Writ Appeal No. 454/13 and Writ Appeal No. 453/13, grievance of the appellants are that when the Writ Court found that there is a statutory remedy of appeal available then staying the order of Registrar dated 4.9.2013 was not warranted. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the aforesaid case submitted that if this order is stayed then the original petitioner Narendra Singh Jadon and the elected Office Bearers would be restored back to power and as their election was illegal this is totally unsustainable. Accordingly, he challenged the order passed by the Writ Court mainly on the ground that the stay granted after relegating the petition to take recourse to the alternative remedy was not proper.
On the contrary, Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and the original petitioner Narendra Singh Jadon in Writ Appeal No. 455/13 submitted that once exercise of power u/s 80A was found unsustainable, the Writ Court should have allowed the entire petition as it was a case of usupuring jurisdiction by the Registrar, Co-operative Society and, therefore, directing the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy was not proper, he seeks for interference with the matter and says that the order of the Registrar passed on 4.9.2013 should be quashed and the election of the petitioner Narendra Singh Jadon and Others be upheld.
We have heard the parties and perused the record.
During the course of hearing, parties had addressed us with regard to the manner in which the election was conducted and have also raised various grounds with regard to the conduct of the election. On considering the rival submissions and the grounds raised, we are satisfied that serious disputed question of fact are involved in the matter which warrants enquiry into factual matters and therefore the learned Writ Court has not committed any error in holding that when disputed question of facts are in existence, parties should take recourse to the statutory remedy available of approaching the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal u/s 77(14) and in doing so the learned Writ Court has not committed any error as disputed question of facts are involved. Under such circumstances it was not appropriate for the writ Court to interfere into the matter particularly when a statutory Tribunal is constituted which has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. That being so, the directions issued by the learned Writ Court relegating the original petitioner Shri Narendra Singh Jadon to take recourse to the remedy available under the statute cannot be termed as erroneous.
As far as stay of the order passed on 4.9.2013 by the Registrar, Cooperative Society exercising the power u/s 80A of the M.P. Cooperative Act is concerned, we have gone through the aforesaid order and prima facie it seems to be an exercise of power which may not be proper. However, as the parties are required to agitate the matter before the Cooperative Tribunal, it is not proper for us to evaluate the merit of the matter and then recording finding with regard to validity of the order passed by the Registrar u/s 80A, this question has to be left open to be decided by the Cooperative Tribunal, when we find that the petitioner has already taken recourse to the remedy available u/s 77(14). However, as the stay granted by the Writ Court is not for a limited period and possibility of the petitioner prolonging the matter before the Co-operative Tribunal on this count cannot be ruled out, we deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Writ Court to the extent of making the stay granted operational only for a limited period and, thereafter, leaving it to the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal, to decide the question of continuing the stay after hearing all concerned. In view of the above, all the three appeals are disposed of and it is directed as under:-
Even though we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court in the matter of relegating the petitioner to approach the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal, u/s 77(14) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The interim stay granted by the Writ Court is directed to be continued only for a period of 45 days from the date this order is produced before the Cooperative Tribunal. Within the period of 45 days, parties are granted liberty to approach the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application for stay and it is for the Cooperative Society to take a decision as to whether the order passed by the Registrar u/s 80A on 4.9.2013 should be stayed or not. The Tribunal is at liberty to pass an interim order/interim direction depending upon the facts and circumstances and as the situation warrants and as is permissible under law. However, it may be clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is exclusively for the Tribunal to deal with all the questions involved in the dispute without being influenced by this order. However, we request the Tribunal to decide question of stay within 45 days and if possible to make an endeavour to decide the proceedings itself within a reasonable period of six months.
With the aforesaid, all the three appeals stand disposed of.