Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1210/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1210 of 2010
=========================================================
DEVATBHAI
N HUBAL & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGER
AND RECOVERY OFFICER & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
J G VAGHELA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
MR H.H.Parikh, AGP for Respondent(s): 3
None for
Respondent(s) : 1, 2,
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 09/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner by this petition has challenged the notice Annexure A
issued by the liquidator of the society.
2. Heard
Mr. Vaghela for the petitioner and Mr. Parikh for respondent No.3
District Registrar, upon the advance copy.
3. It
appears that the basis of the petition is challenge to the notice
issued on the basis of the order under Section 93 of the Gujarat
Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The
said order under Section 93 of the Act is not produced on record,
therefore it is not possible for this Court to undertake any judicial
scrutiny as to whether there is any breach of principle of natural
justice or not. Further the petitioner has efficacious alternative
remedy available before the appropriate forum under the Act against
any action of the liquidator or even against the order passed under
Section 93 of the Act. The petitioner has not resorted to any of the
remedy. The contention that there is breach of principle of natural
justice, therefore the petitioner can approach to this Court in a
petition under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be entertained
in absence of any record produced of the order under Section 93 of
the Act. So far as impugned notice is concerned, the notice has been
issued and the same cannot be said to be in breach of the principle
of natural justice. Therefore, in above view of the matter as the
petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy available under the Act
and the petitioner has not resorted to such remedy, the grievance to
that extent cannot be entertained.
4. Mr.
Vaghela, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the
copy of the order under Section 93 of the Act on the basis of which
the recovery is sought to be effected is not supplied to the
petitioner inspite of the legal notice served and inspite of the
request made by the petitioners. In any case even if the recovery is
to be effected the petitioner is entitled to the copy of the order
under Section 93 of the Act. It is only after the copy of the order
is supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner may be in a position to
approach before the appropriate forum under the Act.
5. Hence,
it is observed that the liquidator of the society respondent No.2
herein shall supply the copy of the order under Section 93 of the Act
to the petitioners for fastening of the financial liability, which is
subject matter of the impugned notice within a period of two (2)
weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court.
6. The
District Registrar, Amreli District respondent No.3 herein shall
ensure that the copy of the said order is supplied to the
petitioners. It is only after the copy of the order is supplied to
the petitioners, the petitioners may resort to appropriate remedy, if
permissible in law.
7. Petition
disposed of accordingly.
[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]
jani
Top