Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9244/2009 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9244 of 2009
=========================================================
VADVA
GROUP CO OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
REGISTRAR
& 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JANAK
RAVAL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR VC VAGHELA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 25/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for the relief, inter alia,
to quash and set aside the action of the Bank in debiting the amount
of Rs.6,22,380/- from the account of the petitioner Society on
11.4.2009 and adjusting the said amount from the amount that was
disbursed to the petitioner Society under the revival scheme as per
recommendation of Professor Vaidhnathan Committee.
Heard
Mr.Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vaghela,
learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
It
appears that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2
Bank falls essentially under the dispute to be considered by the
learned Nominee under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for
short), inasmuch as the petitioner is a Member of respondent No.2
District Level Cooperative Bank. Further, respondent No.2 is not a
‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.
Under
these circumstances, considering the matter in either way, by way of
self-imposed restriction in exercise of power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, when there is already existence of
alternative, efficacious remedy and on the ground that respondent
No.2 Bank is not a ‘State’, it would not be a case to entertain the
petition.
Hence,
the present petition is not entertained and dismissed. It is
observed that if any dispute is raised under Section 96 of the Act,
the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open.
25.1.2010
(Jayant Patel, J.)
vinod
Top