IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.8533 of 2010
1. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUBAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND POST-
HADIABAD, P.S.- AYER, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR
5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR ARA DISTT.- BHOJPUR
6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA
7. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER BHOJPUR, ARA
8. THE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER GORAHANI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
9. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER GARAHANI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
10. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER KOILWAR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
11. JANG RAWANI S/O ROJHAN RAWANI VILLAGE AND POST- ICHARI, P.S.-
AYER, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
-----------
2. 07.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for private
Respondent no.11.
The petitioner is stated to be Chairman of Ichari Primary
Agriculture Credit Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
PACS’). He is aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the
SDO Sadar, Arrah directing private Respondent no. 11 to operate PDS
licence standing in the name of the PACS.
Assailing the order learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that entire action was mala fide. A meeting of the managing committee
was not to be held in the chambers of the SDO. The Block Supply
officer, Koilwar had nothing to do with the licence which related to
Garhani Block. The order of the SDO was therefore thoroughly without
jurisdiction.
There can be no quarrel with the very broad proposition
advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the SDO was not competent to
change the operator of the licence standing in the name of the PACS
through its Chairman. The fact that the name of the petitioner may have
been entered in the licence because he may have been the Chairman,
2
at this stage is inconsequential. The licence was standing in the name
of the PACS.
But, if the members of the managing committee of the PACS
have made a request to the SDO who has then passed the impugned
order, it cannot be said that the order of the SDO is without jurisdiction.
If it be the request of the managing committee there arises a dispute
between the petitioner and the members of the managing committee.
That becomes a dispute amenable to Section 48 of the Bihar
Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar of the Cooperative
Societies. Whether the resolution of the managing committee was in
accordance with law and the bylaws of the PACS are matters to be
more appropriately examined in an application preferred by the
petitioner under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act
before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. The order of the SDO
being founded on the request of the members of the managing
committee and the resolution/decision of the managing committee if not
findiPng favour with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on an
application to be preferred by the petitioner, naturally the impugned
order shall become unsustainable.
The Court is therefore not satisfied that the impugned order calls
for any interference at this stage. If the petitioner files any such
application before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies questioning
the decision of the managing committee in pursuance of which the
impugned order has been passed, it is expected that the same shall be
disposed off expeditiously after hearing all concerned within a maximum
period of three months positively without granting frivolous or
unnecessary adjournment to either parties. If any party refuses to
cooperate, the Registrar shall be at liberty to proceed exparte so as to
3
conclude the proceeding within that time but after recording full
reasoning in the ordersheet of the efforts made to persuade the
defaulting party to participate notwithstanding which he refused to
participate.
The writ application stands disposed.
Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)