Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Hathkargha ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010
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