Jharkhand High Court
Anurag Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 5 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(1)JCR623(JHR)], 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 966, 2003 A I H C 3883, (2003) 1 JLJR 600, (2003) 1 JCR 623 (JHA)
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
ORDER Tapen Sen, J.
1. The Petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.11.2000 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act on the ground that it was ex parte and was passed without any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order of the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) dated 15.2.2001 in Appeal No. 8 of 2001 by which the Appeal was also dismissed.
2. The main points that the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued is that there was no demand of any loan alleged to be outstanding against him and no notice was ever served upon him and yet an award was passed against him holding him liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,62,836.80. The petitioner has further submitted that he is not even a member of the Central Co-operative Bank nor was a surety of any member and consequently the order dated 13.11.2000 (Annexure 2) ought to have first decided as to whether the petitioner was a member, as to whether he had in fact taken any loan or not and as to whether the provisions of Section 16(1) were taken into consideration at the time of passing the order.
3. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2000 it appears that the order was passed ex parte inasmuch as the Deputy Registrar (Headquarters) while passing the impugned order dated 13.11.2000 records as follows :--
"Several dates were fixed for hearing. The petitioner and O.P. appeared. But in spite of reminders by registered letters the O.P. did not file show-cause. Hence, the decree is issued ex parte."
4. It further appears that the entire order is based solely on the report of the Managing Director. This Court does not understand as to how after having observed that the decree was being issued ex parte yet records as follows :--
"After hearing the first party and Anurag Ranjan/M/s. Anurag Electronics has taken loan from the Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Daltonganj and has not repaid Rs. 4,99,110.80 and 5,63,726.00 as principal and interest respectively."
5. However, in the last concluding paragraph once again the authority states that decree of Rs. 10,62,836.80 was being issued ex parte. The appellate order as contained at Annexure 4 also suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons have been given as to why the appeal was dismissed. All that the Appellate Authority states is that he was satisfied that the order passed in Award Case No. 70 of 1998 was proper.
6. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General has referred to various paragraphs of Counter Affidavit and submitted that this is a case of serious fraud perpetrated on the Bank. However, only in view of the fact that no opportunity seems to have been given by the Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 13.11.2000 and also only for the reason that the order of the Appellate Court is a non-speaking order the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded once again to the Deputy Registrar (Cooperative Societies) who will now rehear the matter in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order after allowing the petitioner all adequate opportunity of hearing.
7. Let it be recorded that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The petitioner must present himself before the said Deputy Registrar (Headquarters), Co-operative Societies within two weeks from today. Thereafter the matter will proceed in accordance with procedure and in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Writ Application stands disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.