Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Development Authority vs Radheshyam on 3 January, 2018
~1~
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 2808/2017
Indore, Dated: 3/1/2018
Shri Yogesh Mittal learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Sudhir Londhe learned counsel for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2, though served. Heard.
By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the order dated 27/09/2016 passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal in SA No.3/15 whereby the petitioner's application for grant of stay has been rejected.
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act for allotment and registration of plot in his favour on the basis of the plea that he is member of respondent No.2/society. He further submits that in that application petitioner had raised an objection there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 but the Deputy Registrar without examining the said aspect of the matter had allowed the application of respondent No.1 by directing the petitioner to register the plot in favour of respondent No.1 and to deliver possession thereof. He further submits that the appeal before the Joint Registrar against this order was dismissed and the second appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay before the Corporative Tribunal is pending, but during pendency of the appeal the Cooperative Tribunal has refused to grant the stay and if in the meanwhile the order of the Deputy Registrar is executed than nothing will survive in the pending appeal.
Though, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has opposed the writ petition but he has not disputed that the pending appeal is required to be decided expeditiously. He further submits ~2~ that since respondent No.1 is an aged person, therefore matter should not be kept pending for long.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that this Court vide order dated 16/05/2017 has granted interim relief by restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner and said interim order is operating since then.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's second appeal is still pending before the Cooperative Tribunal and has not been decided till now.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's second appeal / application for condonation of delay, if pending, is required to be decided by Cooperative Tribunal expeditiously.
Hence the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Cooperative Tribunal to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment. The interim order passed by this Court will continue to operate till the second appeal is decided by the Cooperative Tribunal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Bhunesh DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, war Datt 2.5.4.20=3fb5bcda9fd75d95d6c7cdc bd092ee5a74a94a5534aed3a66d93 85cfcfc201e0, cn=Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2018.01.06 12:31:45 -08'00'