Chattisgarh High Court
Prathamik Krishi Sakh Cooperative ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 February, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 2645 of 2021
1. Prathamik Krishi Sakh Cooperative Society, Bodara, A Cooperative
Society Registered Under C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, Having Its
Registration No. 35, Bodara, Through Its President Namely Motiram
Sahu S/o Late Shri Tijuram Sahu, Aged About 59 Years, R/o. Village
Gopaspuri, Post Office Puri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
2. Moti Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Tijuram Sahu (President Of The
Society), Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Gopaspuri, Post Office
Puri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Chhattisgarh Cooperative
Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Registrar, Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur Division, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Deputy Registrar (In - Charge), Co- Operative Societies Dhamtari,
District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
5. Branch Manager, Branch Sambalpur, District Cooperative Central
Bank Maryadit Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 08.02.2022
1. The instant petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 2 26.03.2021 passed by the respondent no.4. Vide the impugned order the respondent no.4 has passed an order of supersession of the petitioner society invoking the provisions of Section 53(1) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( in short "the Act of 1960").
2. The challenge to the impugned order primarily is on the ground that the same has been passed without following due process of law as is required under Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960. According to the petitioners, the requirement under Section 53(1) was not made out and therefore the action of supersession of the Committee is per se illegal. The challenge is also on the ground that the impugned order has been passed ignoring the mandatory compliance required under the Act of 1960. It is the contention of petitioners that none of the allegations made by the respondents are otherwise strong enough warranting the extreme order of supersession. The order passed by the respondents also is without conducting any sort of enquiry whereby the petitioners would have had an opportunity to explain their conduct before the impugned order was passed. On this ground itself, according to the petitioners, the order needs to be vitiated and it also amounts to violation of the basic principles of natural justice.
3. Opposing the petition learned counsel appearing for State Govt. submits that the entire action has been done after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also after a thorough inquiry that was conducted in respect of the allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, there is hardly any scope of interference for this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction. The further contention of the State counsel is that even otherwise the petition 3 should not be entertained for the reason that the petitioners have a remedy of an appeal available under Section 77(1) of the Act of 1960. According to the State counsel, certain complaints were received by the Collector, District Dhamtari as also by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society in respect of certain irregularities and illegalities in the functioning of the petitioner society. After scrutinizing the complaints the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 26.09.2020 constituted a three member committee to submit a report. The said Committee constituted after issuance of notice to the parties considered the nature of complaint and submitted its report to the Dy. Registrar. The Dy. Registrar in turn issued a show cause notice calling upon an explanation from the petitioner society.
4. It is contended by the State counsel that no response was given to the said notice by the petitioners and therefore a fresh notice was again issued under Section 53 (2) of the Act of 1960 on 15.02.2021. The petitioners were also called upon to remain present before the Dy. Registrar with explanation and proof in support of their contention. Finally the respondent no.4 was left with no other option but to pass an order of supersession of the Society by appointing an Administrator to take care of the functioning of Society. According to the State counsel, the aforesaid details itself would show that they were justified in their action and the impugned order was passed after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Society. According to the state counsel, all the grounds which the petitioners have raised in the present writ petition were not the grounds that were raised when they were called upon for hearing before the Deputy Registrar and therefore they cannot now be 4 permitted to raise all these grounds at this belated stage particularly when the matter is put for test before this Court exercising the writ jurisdiction.
5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, for better understanding of the dispute involved in the present writ petition it is necessary firstly to consider the provisions of Section 53 dealing with the supersession of a Board as is provided under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. For ready reference, the relevant portion of Section 53 is being reproduced hereinunder:
53.(1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any society -
(a) is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or bye-laws of the society or by any lawful order passed by the Registrar or is unwilling to perform such duties; or
(b) commits acts which are prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members; or
(c) violates the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or byelaws of the society or any order passed by the Registrar;
the Registrar may, by order in writing, remove the committee and appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance:
(2) No order under sub-section (1) shall be passed unless a list of allegations, documents and witnesses in support of charges leveled against it has been provided and the committee has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order and representation, if any, made by it, is considered.5
3. ...............
4. ............."
6. Now a plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions would clearly indicate that there has to be an opinion to be formed by the Registrar in respect of the Board of any Society. By way of the opinion the Registrar should reach to a conclusion that the Board has been found to be in persistent default or negligent in performance of their duties or commits acts which are prejudicial to the interest of the society or violates the provisions of the Act of 1960 and the rules made thereunder so also the bye-laws of the society.
7. It would now be relevant at this juncture to consider the factual matrix of the case. The present Board i.e. the petitioner society took charge on 21.06.2017 and the Board has been discharging their duties without any grievance to any of the members of the society nor to the officials of the respondents. Abruptly however a show cause notice for the first time was issued on 15.02.2021 i.e. Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. Now for further appreciation of the allegations that were levelled in the show cause notice it would also be relevant to pinpoint the allegations which for ready reference again are being reproduced hereinunder:
" 1- ;g fd laLFkk deZpkjh Jh cynso jke lkgw dks fnukad 10@12@2014 dks 1039-61 fDoaVy /kku deh ds dkj.k izFke n`'V;k esa nks'kh ik, tkus ij fuyafcr fd;k tkdj fu;ekuqlkj xqtkjk HkRrk nsus dk vkns"k tkjh fd;k x;k ijUrq fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k esa lacaf/kr dks vkjksi i= ugha fn, tkus ds dkj.k ¼lkekU; iz"kklu dz-lh 6&2@82@3@1 fnukad&20@05@1992 ds df.Md dz-2½ lacaf/kr }kjk fnukad&23@07@2015 dks Lor% cgkyh vkns"k tkjh djus gsrq v/;{k lapkyu lfefr ,oa izca/kd dks vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftl ij fdlh izdkj laLFkk }kjk dk;Zokgh ugha dh rFkk dk;Z lapkyu lfefr ds cSBd 6 fnukad 15@04@2017 ds ikfjr fu.kZ; dzekad 1 ds }kjk lacaf/kr deZpkjh dks fuyacu ls cgky fd;k tkdj la;qDr iath;d] lgdkjh laLFkk,a jk;iqj ls vuqeksnu gsrq i=kpkj ugha fd;k x;k rFkk fuyafcr deZpkjh Jh cynso jke lkgw dks fuyacu fnukad ls tkap fnukad rd thou fuokZg HkRrk 7275@& izfr ekg dh nj Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA 2- ;g fd laLFkk esa dk;Zjr izca/kdkfj.kh lfefr }kjk 21 twu 2017 dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq vkt rd muds ,oa laLFkk ds cSad dzsMj ds izca/kd }kjk mDr ikfjr izLrko ds fo:} ,oa fuyafcr deZpkjh Jh cynso jke lkgw ls /kku LVkWd deh dh jkf"k olwyh ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh ugha fd;k x;k gSA 3- ;g fd cynso jke lkgw ds yafcr fuyacu ekuns; ds Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa laLFkk ds izca/kdkfj.kh lfefr ds cSBd fnukad 31@12@2018 ds ikfjr fu.kZ; dzekad&9 ds vuqlkj la;qDr@mi iath;d }kjk cgkyh dh dk;Zokgh ds vuqeksnu i"pkr fuyacu vof/k ds leLr ns;dksa dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k tk,xk dk fu.kZ; loZlEefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftlds ifjizs{; esa laLFkk ds lfefr izca/kd }kjk fnukad&08@02@2019 dks "kk[kk izca/kd ds vxzs'k.k ds lkFk mi iath;d lgdkjh /kerjh dks fnukad 15@04@2017 dh dk;Zokgh dzekad&1 ds fu.kZ; dh Nk;kizfr layXu dj vuqeksnu gsrq i= izsf'kr fd;k x;k] ftuds rkjrE; esa mi iath;d lgdkjh laLFkk,a /kerjh dk dk;kZy;hu i= dzekad 140 /kerjh fnukad 15@02@2019 ds }kjk mDr dk;Zokgh dk vuqeksnu fd;k tkdj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls voxr djkus gsrq laLFkk ds v/;{k ,oa izca/kd dks funsZf"kr fd;k x;k] ijarq laLFkk dh izca/ku lfefr }kjk mi iath;d] lgdkjh laLFkk,a /kerjh dks fnukad 22@03@2019 dks ,d iz"ukRed i=] U;k;ky; esa dsl gksus ds dkj.k Hkqxrku esa vleFkZrk crkrs gq, fy[kk x;k gSA laLFkk ds v/;{k ,oa lfefr izca/kd dks cynso jke lkgw }kjk fuyacu vof/k dk ,fj;lZ jkf"k Hkqxrku ugha djus ij mlds vkosnu ij 5 fcUnqvksa ij Li'Vhdj.k dk;kZy;hu i= dzekad 461 fnukad 7 28@05@2019 ds }kjk 01 lIrkg ds vanj izLrqr djus gsrq funsZf"kr fd;k x;k ijUrq laLFkk ds izca/kd }kjk mDr Li'Vhdj.k dk tokc dk;kZy; }kjk Jh cynso jke lkgw dks fuyacu vof/k dh ,fj;lZ jkf"k Hkqxrku djus ds laca/k esa funsZf"kr fd;k x;k fdUrq laLFkk ds lapkyd e.My us "kkldh; funsZ"kksa dh lrr~ vogsyuk djrs gq, laLFkk dh mifof/k ,oa lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e 1960 ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr d`R; fd;k ,oa vius drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa pwd dh gSA 4- ;g fd laLFkk ds foRrh; i=d 2017&18 esa cSad dks ns; en ckdh fujad gksus ds mijkar Hkh cSad }kjk laLFkk cksM+jk ds cpr [kkrs dks fnukad 31@08@2018 dks ds-lh-lh- de C;kt olwy crkdj 11]59]000-00 :- vf/kd C;kt olwy dh xbZ gSa] ftlds laca/k esa laLFkk esa dszMj dk izca/kd dk;Zjr gksrs gq, Hkh C;kt jkf"k okil djus ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h gS] tks fd laLFkk izca/ku ,oa laLFkk izca/kd }kjk vius nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa ykijokgh dk Li'V |ksrd gSA 5- ;g fd laLFkk esa dk;Zjr dzsmj ds lfefr izca/kd Jh dkS"ky izlkn lkgw }kjk vads{k.k o'kZ 2016&17 ds nkSjku QthZ rjhds ls jkf"k 82655-00 :- flyd jkf"k dk vkgj.k dj QthZ rjhds [kpZ crkdj jkf"k xcu fd;k x;k gS ftlds laca/k esa rkRdkyhu lfefr izca/kd ,oa izca/kdkfj.kh lfefr }kjk olwyh gsrq fdlh izdkj dh oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh ugha fd;k x;k gSA QyLo:i laLFkk dks 82]655-00 :-
ewy/ku ,oa C;kt dh {kfr gqbZ gSA rr~laca/k esa vads{k.k Vhi o'kZ 2016&17 ds vkifRr dzekad 20 esa mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gSA 6- ;g fd laLFkk cksMjk esa dk;Zjr Jh rqys"oj lkgw] fodzsrk ds fnukad 20@08@2020 esa mfpr ewY; nqdku] cksMjk] fctukiqjh dk Lvkd lR;kiu esa 2002 yhVj feV~Vh rsy ,oa 7-48 fDaoVy ,-ih-,y- pkoy Lvkd deh ik;k x;kA mDr fodzsrk }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh fcdzh jkf"k dk xcu fd;k x;k gS] 8 ftls muds }kjk ckn esa laLFkk esa tek fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj "kkldh; lEifRr ,oa "kkldh; jkf"k dk nq:i;ksx dj laLFkk dks {kfr igqapk;k gS] ftlls okLrfod miHkksDrkvksa dks mDr lkexzh feyus ls oafpr gksus ds dkj.k "kklu ,oa laLFkk dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZ gSA rr~laca/k esa lacaf/kr deZpkjh ds fo:) oS/kkfud vuq"kklukRed dk;Zokgh dh tkuh Fkh] ftls laLFkk izca/ku ,oa lfefr izca/kd }kjk ugha fd;k tkdj nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa pwd ,oa laLFkk dks vkfFkZd {kfr igqapkus esa lgHkkfxrk ,oa lafyIrrk iznf"kZr djrk gSA"
8. To the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioners submitted a detailed reply immediately on 28.02.2021 itself. The petitioners were again issued with another notice on 12.03.2021 in respect of the implementation of the revised pay scale payable to the members of the society followed by yet another notice dated 16.03.2021 in respect of granting promotion to an employee appointed on daily wage basis as a salesman of the said society. Thereafter, the impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed on 26.03.2021.
9. The plain reading of the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 26.03.2021 would reveal that the said order has been passed in a total mechanical manner inasmuch as there does not seem to be any application of mind by the respondent no.4 before issuance of the impugned order. Moreover, the said order is also not a speaking order by the Dy. Registrar inasmuch as if we look into the impugned order, it would reveal that the respondent no.4 first of all has narrated the different charges and allegations levelled against the petitioners and thereafter has reflected the explanation provided by the petitioners to each of the allegations and thereafter straight away has jumped to the conclusion without there being any discussion of the explanation that the petitioners have provided or in respect of the 9 evidence that was collected by the enquiry committee on the basis of which the proceeding under Section 53 of the Act of 1960 was initiated. For ready reference, the operative part of the impugned order is being reproduced hereinunder:
"fu'd'kZ %& laLFkk ds v/;{k ,oa lapkyd e.My ds lnL;ksa }kjk izLrqr tokc ijh{k.kksijkar fof/kd ,oa larks'kizn ugha ik;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ;g Li'V gS fd laLFkk ds lapkyd e.My }kjk vius nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa yxkrkj pwd ds lkFk gh jftLVªkj ,oa ftyk dk;kZy; }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fof/kiw.kZ vkns"k }kjk vf/kjksfir drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djus esa lrr~ mis{kk dh gSA o'kZ 2013&14 esa /kku deh dh jkf"k 17]55]387-21 : dh gkfu ds fy, D;k ek= rkRdkfyd lgk;d lfefr izca/kd gh ftEesnkj gS \ tcfd laLFkk }kjk /kku esa deh ls mRiUu mDr gkfu dks lkekU; O;kikfjd gkfu ekudj ykHk@gkfu [kkrs ls lek;ksftr fd;k pqdk gS] vkjksi dzekad 01 ls 08 esa Li'V gS fd laLFkk dk lapkyd e.My okLrfod :i ls nks'kh deZpkfj;ksa ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus esa ukdke ,oa laLFkk dks gkfu ls cpkus rFkk laLFkk fgr esa dk;Z&lapkyu esa vlQy jgk gSA laLFkk ds lapkyd e.My dh Lo;aHkw o`fRr ,oa mis{kkiw.kZ izo`fRr ds dkj.k laLFkk dh lk[k rFkk lnL;ksa dk fgr izHkkfor gqvk gSA"
The plain reading of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the respondent no.4 would reveal that there is no discussion whatsoever to the explanation provided by the petitioners.
10. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Sanjay Nagayach and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 25 wherein certain observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the conduct of Registrar, Joint Registrar and Dy. Registrar qua any external influence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 36 & 37 of the said judgment held as under:
10
"36. Statutory functionaries like the Registrar/ Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies functioning under the respective Co-
operative Act must be above suspicion and function independently without external pressure. When an authority invested with the power purports to act on its own but in substance the power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it would amount to non-exercise of power, statutorily vested. Large number of cases are coming up before this Court and the High Courts in the country challenging the orders of supersession and many of them are being passed by the statutory functionaries due to external influence ignoring the fact that they are ousting a democratically elected Board, the consequence of which is also grave because the members of the Board of Directors would also stand disqualified in standing for the succeeding election as well.
37. The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising powers of supersession has to form an opinion and that opinion must be based on some objective criteria, which has nexus with the final decision. A statutory authority shall not act with pre-conceived notion and shall not speak his masters' voice, because the formation of opinion must be his own, not of somebody else in power, to achieve some ulterior motive. There may be situations where the Registrar/Joint Registrar are expected to act in the best interest of the society and its members, but in such situations, they have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the Statute. In our view, the impugned order will not fall in that category."
11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the very same judgment has also issued certain directions taking into consideration the large number of cases dealing with the order of supersession. For ready reference, the directions so issued in paragraph 42 of the aforesaid judgment is again reproduced hereinunder:
"42. Further, we are inclined to give the following general directions in view of the mushrooming of cases in various Courts challenging orders of 11 supersession of elected Committees:
42.1) Supersession of an elected managing Committee/Board is an exception and be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances and normally elected body be allowed to complete the term for which it is elected.
42.2) Elected Committee in office be not penalised for the short-comings or illegalities committed by the previous Committee, unless there is any deliberate inaction in rectifying the illegalities committed by the previous committees.
42.3) Elected Committee in Office be given sufficient time, say at least six months, to rectify the defects, if any, pointed out in the audit report with regard to incidents which originated when the previous committee was in office.
42.4) Registrar/Joint Registrar are legally obliged to comply with all the statutory formalities, including consultation with the financing banks/Controlling Banks etc. Only after getting their view, an opinion be formed as to whether an elected Committee be ousted or not.
42.5) Registrar/ Joint Registrar should always bear in mind the consequences of an order of supersession which has the effect of not only ousting the Board out of office, but also disqualify them for standing for election in the succeeding elections. Registrar/Joint Registrar therefore is duty bound to exercise his powers bona fide and not on the dictation or direction of those who are in power.
42.6) Registrar/Joint Registrar shall not act under political pressure or influence and, if they do, be 12 subjected to disciplinary proceedings and be also held personally liable for the cost of the legal proceedings.
42.7) Public money is not to be spent by the State Government or the Registrar for unnecessary litigation involving disputes between various factions in a co-operative society. Tax payers money is not expected to be spent for settling those disputes. If found necessary, the same is to be spent from the funds available with the Bank concerned."
12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Nagayach (supra) if we now look into the various allegations which have been levelled against the petitioners, it would reveal that firstly none of these allegations as such meets the conditions stipulated in Sub Section 1 of Section 53 of the Act of 1960 which should be the finding or the opinion arrived at by the Registrar. Secondly it is also reflected from the allegations that all of them are one which can be cured provided the petitioners are given certain time for compliance of such directions.
13. In the instant case, there has been no correspondence made by the State authorities directing the petitioners to specifically comply with the charges and allegations which have been made. That only in the event if the petitioners had not honoured the directions of the respondent authorities, there would have been a need for initiating a proceeding of supersession. There is yet another fact which needs to be taken note of that, only because there are certain shortcomings, illegalities or irregularities detected that by itself should not be a ground for supersession of a Society. It is here that the direction of 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Nagayach (supra) in Paragraphs 42.1, 42.2 & 42.3 becomes relevant. These directions laid down by the Supreme Court still holds good.
14. Reverting back to the facts of the present case it would reveal that the respondent no.4 abruptly vide show cause notice dated 15.02.2021 straight away initiated a proceeding under Section 53 for supersession without taking into consideration firstly the requirement under Section 53(1) and secondly without further complying with the requirement under sub section 2 of Section 53 of the Act of 1960.
15. The fact which also needs to be considered is the repercussion of the impugned order inasmuch as if the authorities do not adhere to the statutory provisions in terms of the Act of 1960 and also if the authorities are permitted to circumvent the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Nagayach (supra), it would lead to a situation where any authority at any point of time for pretty matters itself can supersede a Board which otherwise is not the intention of the law makers in the process of framing Section 53 of the Act of 1960. The further serious repercussion to such an action is that the members of the Board which stand superseded would automatically be disqualified for contesting elections of the Society for a period of next 7 years.
16. A similar view has also been taken by this High Court in the case of Nanhe Singh & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WP227 No. 5 of 2017 wherein after referring to the judicial pronouncements on the field of Section 53 the Hon'ble Bench in Paragraphs 11 & 12 has held as under:
"11. the petitioners are admittedly elected office-14
bearers of the said Society and the consequence of their losing the office by way of super-session is statutorily provided in the shape of Section 53(12) of the Act in the shape of society. They will have to be unseated once they are superseded and they are automatically further disqualified for a period of seven years from contesting election and even for nomination they are disqualified. The provisions of disqualification have to be construed strictly, as the member of the said Society itself will be the sufferer on account of disqualification, if any, suffered by the office-bearers of a committee.
12. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Nagayach (supra) has clearly held that the provision of supersession has to be resorted to only in exceptional cases, as super-session of an elected Managing Committee/Board is an exception and it is not a rule and the elected Committee in office be given sufficient time, at least six months, to rectify the defects, if any, pointed out in the audit report with regard to incidents which originated when the previous committee was in office.
Nothing in this sort has been done by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, while superseding the committee headed by petitioner no.1 and other petitioners holding other posts of the said Committee."
17. Further reverting to the charges levelled against the petitioners in the show cause notice what is apparent is that there is no allegation of any of the members of the present Board to be involved in any sort of the act detrimental to the Society. Nor is there any direct allegation against any of the present members of the Society being personally involved in any misconduct, misappropriation, 15 illegality or irregularity. None of these charges are also too serious an allegation which warrants supersession. Thus, the judgment and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Nagayach (supra) would come to the rescue of the petitioners.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 26.03.2021 being bad in law deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed with consequences to follow.
19. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai