Punjab-Haryana High Court
Som Nath And Others vs The Deputy Registrar Cooperative ... on 18 April, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 2252 of 2011 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : April ________, 2012
Som Nath and others
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Socieites, Hoshiarpur and others
.... RESPONDENTS
Present : Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.11.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 17340 of 2011) filed by appellants, namely Som Nath, Kusum Lata and Omkar Nath, and one Pardeep Kumar Bawa (proforma respondent No.7 herein) was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, with liberty to the petitioners in the writ petition to avail the alternative remedies under law, if necessity so arises.
In the present case, the appellants as well as proforma respondent No.7 filed writ petition for quashing the order dated 2.2.2011 LPA No. 2252 of 2011 ( O&M ) -2- (Annexure P-4) passed by the Board of Directors of the Hoshiarpur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as `the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur'), to the extent of ordering de novo inquiry against them and appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.5) as Inquiry Officer. It was further prayed that a direction be issued to the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur and its management to finalise the inquiry proceedings against them on the basis of the earlier inquiry report exonerating them of the charges levelled against them.
When the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the court that the de novo inquiry in the present case had already been concluded. Appellant No.1 had been awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments; proforma respondent No.7 Pardeep Kumar Bawa had been exonerated; appellant No.2 had been dismissed from service and the disciplinary action with regard to appellant No.3 was deferred. The learned Single Judge, while taking into consideration the fact that the enquiry had already been concluded and the necessary action has been taken, and further while observing that even the writ petition was not maintainable in the light of two judgments of this court, mentioned in the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous, with liberty to avail the alternative remedies under law, if necessity so arises. LPA No. 2252 of 2011 ( O&M ) -3-
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, the de novo inquiry was concluded and the aforesaid disciplinary action was taken against the appellants. However, he emphasised that the learned Single Judge was not right, while observing that the writ petition filed by the appellants and proforma respondent No.7 was not maintainable. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others Vs. V.R. Rudani and others,, AIR 1989 SC 1607 and A. Uma Rani Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others, AIR 2004 SC 4504.
In our view, this contention of learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable. The Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur is a Co- operative Society, registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is not a statutory authority. It is not owned, controlled or managed by the Government. It is managed by the elected Board of Directors. The State Government does not have any deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur. There is absolutely no share money of the Government in the bank. Thus, in our view, the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur is not an authority or LPA No. 2252 of 2011 ( O&M ) -4- instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and others, JT 2003 (8) SC 236 has held that the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, which is registered Co-operative Society under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, is not an instrumentality of the State and also not engaged in any activity involving any public function, therefore, the writ petition challenging termination of surplus workmen was not maintainable. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Rana Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another, JT 2006 (5) SC 186, wherein it was held that no writ petition is maintainable against the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kangra, which was registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. This Court also in the following cases of the Co-operative Societies has held that the writ petition is not maintainable :-
(i) Sarbjeet Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 16584 of 2003, decided on May 11, 2006) : Case of the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala;
(ii) Bhajan Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 2595 of 1991, decided on 5.9.2007) : Case of the Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalandhar; and LPA No. 2252 of 2011 ( O&M ) -5-
(iii) Rakesh Sharma Vs. The Hindu Cooperative Bank Limited, Pathankot and another (CWP No. 15480 of 2005, decided on 17.7.2006) : Case of the Hindu Cooperative Bank Limited, Pathankot.
Even in a bunch of six writ petitions, pertaining to the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure R-4/1), this Court has held that writ petition against the Cooperative Bank, Hoshiarpur, is not maintainable.
The judgments in Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust's and A. Uma Rani's cases (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In those cases, the appointments made by the Co-operative Societies, which were violative of the mandatory statutory provisions of the Co-operative Socieites Act, were challenged. It was observed in those cases that the writ could be maintained, when action of the Co-operative Societies is violative of the statutory mandatory provisions. In the present case, the appellants were challenging the decision of the disciplinary authority, where he had not agreed with the inquiry report and had ordered for de novo inquiry. It is a service matter and the allegation is not regarding violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, but regarding taking decision for holding de novo inquiry.
In view of above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single LPA No. 2252 of 2011 ( O&M ) -6- Judge has rightly observed that the writ petition was not maintainable.
No merit. Dismissed.
However, it will be open for the appellants to challenge the order of punishment in accordance with the Service Rules, applicable to them.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
April , 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE