Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard on admission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27th December, 2012 passed by the Joint Registry, Cooperative Societies, Chambal Division, Morena (Annexure P/1).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 preferred an application u/s 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act with certain reliefs. In turn, the petitioner filed documents ( at page 28-A of the petition) wherein certain objections are taken that the dispute itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without dealing with the aspect, an interim order in the nature of final order is passed by the Joint Registry, Co-operative Societies (Annexure P/1) which may be interfered with and interim orders be passed. However, he fairly admits that there exists a statutory remedy to prefer an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal. Shri Gupta, however, submits that when the order is without jurisdiction, this Court can interfere and entertain the petition. He submits that before the Co-operative Tribunal the matters are listed after months together and, therefore, it is not an expeditious remedy.

In the opinion of this Court, despite availability of statutory remedy this Court can interfere in the matter directly, however, it is not in dispute that that there is a statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner. It is a self imposed restrain on this Court to entertain a petition despite availability of alternative remedy. Thus, its a discretion of the Court and not a compulsion to entertain a petition despite availability of alternative remedy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy before the appellate forum. I am unable to hold that if the petitioner is relegated to avail the said remedy, any palpable injustice would be caused to it. This view is expressed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, which is read as under :

The High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute.

In the absence of showing any palpable injustice if the petitioner is relegated to avail the said remedy, I find no reason to entertain the petition directly.

Considering the aforesaid, this petition is not entertained. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal. However, it is expected that if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Tribunal, The Tribunal will deal with it in accordance with law and shall hear the petitioner on appeal and interim relief prayed for (if any ), within seven days from the date of its filing. With the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of.