Writ Petition No.6735/2010
7.7.2010
Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri B.N. Mishra, learned Govt. Advocate for State of
M.P. on advance notice.
Petitioner an association of Madhya Pradesh State
Handloom Weavers Corporation has filed this petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
quashment of the orders dated 27.4.2010 whereby keeping
in view the continuous loss and the serious financial crisis,
respondent No. 4, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Hathkargha
Bunkar Society Maryadit has been directed to be wound up
in accordance with the provisions stipulated in the Madhya
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The order also
reveals that the liberty to bind up the society was also
accorded by this Court vide order dated 1.12.2009 passed
in W.A. No. 335/2009.
In W.A. 335/2009: Madhya Pradesh Rajya
Hathkargha Bunkar Sahkari Sangh and another v. Ramesh
Sahu and others, it was held by their Lordships:
“Though the controversy in the present matter
was pivoting around the appointment of Mr. K.K.
Dubey as Incharge Managing Director but this Court
taking into consideration that no Managing Director
was appointed for long time inquired from the State
Government & its officers that within what time the
post of Managing Director of appellant No. 1 would
be filled. The Court also required the Director of
Handloom to appear in person and apprise this Court
about the progress in the matter.
The Director, Handloom has filed the additional
reply on 30.11.209 submitted interalia that a
decision was taken by the State Government to wind
2
up the apex fedration, appellant No. 1 and
proceedings for liquidation were initiated in the year
2001. The said liquidation proceedings were
challenged by Ramesh Sahu in Writ Petition
1445/2002. The proceedings were stayed and final
orders were passed by this Court on 19.3.2008.
It is submitted by the respondent that the writ
petition against the proposed liquidation proceedings
was dismissed. It is also submitted that as the
appellant No. 1 is to be taken under liquidation and
as the financial condition of appellant No. 1 is very
bad, the Government is proposing to move
appropriate proceedings for liquidation.
Insofar as the appeal filed by Mr. K.K. Dubey is
concerned, we can straightway dismiss the same
holding that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge does not suffer with any infirmity. Insofar as
the remaining questions are concerned, the said
questions were not raised in the writ petition by
respondent No. 1 nor the questions were considered
by the learned Single Judge.
At this stage, if we enter into all those niceties
and the questions relating to appointment of a full
time Director then we would be enlarging the scope of
appeal and would be entering into a meld which was
never opened in the writ petition.
It would be for the State Government to approve
the proposal or not to approve the proposal. If the
State Government feels that they are required to take
the appellant No. 1 under liquidation then they shall
be obliged to take appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law. However, if the State
Government is of the opinion that a full time Director
is required to be appointed to mar the appellant No.
1 then nothing stops the State Government from
taking such appropriate steps.”
The aforesaid verdict as it appears from record has
been allowed to attain finality.
Therefore, since the issue regarding binding up of
respondent No. 4 having been settled, the same cannot now
be unsettled at the instance of the petitioner, a federation
3
of employees, when respondent No. 4 has not chosen to
question the same.
Since no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the
petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
J U D G E
Vivek Tripathi