Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahipal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.65/2020
Mahipal Singh Yadav Vs. Collector and others
Gwalior, Dated :09/01/2020
Shri K.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri R.K. Soni, Government Advocate for State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed challenging the order dated 6/11/2019 passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Jila Sahkari Central Bank Maryadit, Guna, by
which it has been ordered that the charge of Branch Saraskhedi be
handed over to respondent no.7.
The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that by order dated 8/4/2011 the license of Government fair price shop run by Seva Sahkari Sanstha Saraskhedi was suspended by the SDO, Ashoknagar and it was directed that the food grains shall be distributed by the nearby shop Ruhana. The said order was modified by order dated 3/5/2011 and it was directed that instead of fair price shop Ruhana, food grains shall be distributed from the Government fair price shop Piprai. A representation was made to the Collector, District Ashoknagar against the amended order and accordingly, the Collector, District Ashoknagar by order dated 27/5/2011 cancelled the amended order dated 3/5/2011 and restored back the order dated 8/4/2011, by which it was directed that the food grains shall be distributed from fair price shop Ruhana. The order dated 27/5/2011 Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 10/01/2020 17:57:26 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.65/2020 Mahipal Singh Yadav Vs. Collector and others was challenged by Seva Sahkari Sanstha Saraskhedi by filing writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.4643/2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19/9/2011 and the matter was remanded back. Accordingly, by order dated 28/12/2011 the licence of the Seva Sahkari Sanstha Saraskhedi was restored, however, the services of respondent no.7 who was working on the post of Salseman/ Assistant Society Manager, were terminated. The order dated 28/12/2011 was challenged by the respondent no.7 by filing writ petition No.203/2012, which was disposed of by order dated 8/5/2017 and the matter was remanded with a direction to the Collector Ashoknagar to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent no.7 challenged the order passed by the Writ Court by filing Writ Appeal No.271/2017 on the ground that although the question of competency of the Collector was raised, but the Single Judge did not dwell upon the said question and accordingly, by order dated 29/5/2017 a liberty was given to the respondent no.7 to file a review petition. Accordingly, the RP No.292/2017 was filed by the respondent no.7 and by order dated 27/6/2017 the said review petition was rejected. The order passed in the review was challenged by the respondent no.7 by filing Writ Appeal No.319/2017 and the said Writ Appeal was also dismissed by order dated 27/7/2017 and Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 10/01/2020 17:57:26 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.65/2020 Mahipal Singh Yadav Vs. Collector and others accordingly, the matter was once again heard by the Collector, Ashoknagar. Thereafter, the Collector, Ashoknagar by order dated 30/11/2017 passed in case No.15/Appeal-121/2017-18/107 set aside the direction of removal of the respondent no.7 from the post of Salesman and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The order dated 30/11/2017 has been challenged by the petitioner in a revision before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Gwalior, which has been registered as case No.80-A/14-18/2018 (Revision). Although the said revision is still pending and the next date of hearing before the Revisional Tribunal is 15/1/2020, but by the impugned order the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahkari Central Bank Maryadit, Guna has directed to hand over the charge of Saraskhedi Society to the respondent no.7.
It is submitted that since the order dated 30/11/2017 is subject matter of challenge in a revision filed by the petitioner, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer should not have directed for handing over the exclusive charge to respondent no.7.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is undisputed fact that by order dated 28/12/2011 the respondent no.7 was removed from the post of Salesman/Assistant Society Manager. However, after several rounds of litigation the matter was considered afresh by the Collector under the orders of this Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 10/01/2020 17:57:26 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.65/2020 Mahipal Singh Yadav Vs. Collector and others Court and by order dated 30/11/2017 the Collector, Ashoknagar reinstated the respondent no.7 after imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- for his negligence in not opening the fair price shop in time. Undisputedly, there is no stay on the effect and operation of order dated 30/11/2017 although the said order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Chief Executive Officer, District Sahkari Central Bank Maryadit, Guna did not commit any mistake by directing for having over the charge of the society Saraskhedi to respondent no.7.
At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since his revision is pending from 2018, therefore, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Gwalior may be directed to decide the revision as early as possible.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Since the order dated 30/11/2017 passed by the Collector Ashoknagar is the subject matter of revision before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider the merits of the case, otherwise any observation / finding would prejudice the mind of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Gwalior. Accordingly, it is directed that in case Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 10/01/2020 17:57:26 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.65/2020 Mahipal Singh Yadav Vs. Collector and others if the petitioner files an application for urgent hearing of the revision and if the said revision is ripe for final hearing, then the same shall be decided as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.
With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Date: 10/01/2020 17:57:26