Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22172
1 WP-6377-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6377 of 2026
SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 06/02/2026 passed by respondent No.4, by which sanction for prosecution of the petitioners has been granted.
2 . It is the case of the petitioners that Alp Aya Varg Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rewa is a primary housing cooperative society, which is governed by the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960 ') and the M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962. The Samiti is having its own byelaws following the Act and Rules. The term of the office bearers of the Samiti is 5 years and elections were conducted after completion of 5 years for office bearers of the society. The petitioners were elected as Board Members in the society in the year 2021. The Board was dissolved by order of respondent No.3 vide order dated 07/05/2025. Against which, an Appeal is pending adjudication before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. Certain complaints were made against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:32:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22172 2 WP-6377-2026 petitioners and the Board for certain illegal works which were carried out. Respondent No.3 got conducted an enquiry through a committee comprising of 3 members, wherein none of the allegations were found proved against the petitioners. The enquiry report dated 27/11/2024 shows that none of the allegations made against the petitioner were found proved. The respondents Department due to some political pressure and the questions raised in the Assembly issued a show cause notice to the petitioners under Section 76(2) of the Act on 21/05/2025. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioners denying all the allegations. A notification is issued by the State Government on 26/07/1999, by which the Joint Registrar was empowered to exercise powers of Registrar. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, respondent No.4, who was having no jurisdiction to pass an order of granting sanction for prosecution, without application of mind, has passed the order impugned.
3. It is argued that since the Joint Registrar or Registrar has not passed the impugned order and the order is passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society, the impugned order is unsustainable as the same is without jurisdiction. The agreement entered into was already cancelled and the amount was returned back in the account of the Society. The aforesaid finding was recorded in the enquiry report. Not even a single penny of the amount was misused. Therefore, nothing wrong has been committed by the petitioners. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State on instructions has submitted that the order impugned has rightly been passed. The same is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:32:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22172 3 WP-6377-2026 based upon the enquiry which is conducted by a 3-members Committee. It is argued that prior to issuance of the impugned sanction order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Petitioners have submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The entire proceedings were carried out by the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society. Therefore, the Authority has rightly exercised the powers for granting sanction for prosecution. Petitioners will be having ample opportunity to defend their case before the Authorities in appropriate proceedings. As far as grant of sanction is concerned, the same is granted while exercising powers in terms of Section 76(2) of the Act of 1960. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6 . The sole question which comes up for consideration before this Court is that whether the Deputy Registrar has powers to give sanction for prosecution of the members of the Cooperative Society or Directors like petitioners or not.
7. Section 76 of the Act of 1960 provides as under:-
"76. Cognizance of offences. -(1) No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act.
(2) No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar and such sanction shall not be given without giving to the person concerned an opportunity to represent his case."
8. From the perusal of provision of Section 76(2) of the Act of 1960, it is apparently clear that the Registrar has to pass an order for sanction in writing and no sanction order could have been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The notification (Annexure-P/5) which has been issued by the Government provides that the powers granted Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:32:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22172 4 WP-6377-2026 to the Registrar can be exercised by the Joint Registrar. The relevant of which reads as under:-
"अिधसूचना .एफ. ५-१-९९-प ह-१ए, द. २६-७-१९९९, म. . राजप , असाधारण, दनांक २६-७-१९९९, पृ. १०९५ पर कािशत- म य दे श सहकार सोसाइट अिधिनयम १९६० ( . १७ सन ् १९६१) क धारा ३ क उपधारा (२) ारा द श य को योग म लाते हुए तथा इस वभाग क अिधसूचना मांक एफ. ५-६-७९-एक-प ह-क, दनांक २७ अग त १९७९ को अित त करते हुए, रा य सरकार, एत ारा, यह िनदे श दे ती है क र ज ार को उ अिधिनयम तथा उसके अधीन बनाये गये िनयम के अधीन द , सम त श यां संयु र ज ार, सहकार सोसाइट , मु यालय ारा, म य दे श रा य के भीतर योग क जाएंगी."
9. If the impugned order is seen in the light of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparently clear that the order is passed by the Deputy Registrar while exercising powers under Section 76(2) of the Act of 1960. If the provisions of Section 76(2) of the Act of 1960 are taken note of and the subsequent notification dated 26/07/1999 (Annexure-P/5) are considered, then it is clear that the Deputy Registrar is not having any powers for grant of sanction for prosecution. The power vests with the Registrar or the Joint Registrar to give sanction for prosecution. Therefore, it can safely be said that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rewa is having no jurisdiction to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioners.
10. When confronted with the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that liberty be extended to them to pass a fresh order of sanction of the petitioners taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners.
11. As the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar/ respondent No.4 is without jurisdiction, therefore the same is unsustainable. It is hereby Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:32:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22172 5 WP-6377-2026 quashed. However, liberty is extended to the respondents to pass a fresh order of sanction for prosecution after considering the reply submitted by the petitioners.
12. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:32:07