Orissa High Court
Primary Agriculture Co vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 13 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2365 of 2025
Primary Agriculture Co- ..... Petitioners
opeartive Society Ltd,
Kendrapara and others
Represented By Adv. -
Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Pati, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
13.02.2025 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up on Court's own motion through Hybrid mode.
2. On perusal of the order dated 04.02.2025, it appears that the prayer part of the said order has been inadvertently typed out. Therefore, the said order is hereby recalled and in its place the following order is passed.
W.P.(C) No.2365 of 20255. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that the writ application Page 1 of 7. be admitted, notice be issued to the opp.parties to show cause as to why the order dt.12.12.2024 passed by the opp.party No.3 through opp party No.4 shall not be quashed and fresh inquiry shall not be conducted оп the resolution and recommendation dt. 24.07.2024 for disqualification of opp.party No.5 if they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the order vide letter dt. 12.12.2024 under Annexure-5 and the consequent enquiry report be quashed and the opp.parties more particularly opp.party No.3& 4 be directed to conduct fresh inquiry on the resolution and recommendation under Annexrue-4 of the PACS.
AND Any other writ/writs, order/orders and/or direction/directions be issued as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."
4. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. He has also prayed for quashing of the inquiry report and for a direction to conduct a fresh inquiry pursuant to ignorance of the resolution and recommendation dated 24.07.2024 with regard to disqualification of Opposite Party No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the present dispute arises out of Baradanga PACS Ltd. which is the registered PACS being registered on 01.11.1965. During functioning of the aforesaid PACS, it was detected that the Opposite party No.5 remained continuously absent in the meeting of Board of Directors of the abovenamed PACS. Accordingly, an inquiry was ordered pursuant to the order of the Senior ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara vide letter dated 31.08.2024. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer namely Sri J.N.Biswal, ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara was appointed.
Page 2 of 7.Consequently the inquiry was conducted on a different date as evident from the enquiry report under Annexure-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that being aggrieved by the inquiry report submitted by the ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara, the petitioner has approached this Court by filling the present writ application as there exists no other alternative remedy as the learned Co-operative Tribunal is not functioning due to non- availability of the member of the said tribunal.
5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the facts of the present case as well as documents annexed to the writ application contended that the inquiry was conducted by the concerned ARCS without verifying the records of the PACS Ltd. He further alleged that although the Opposite Party No.5 was remaining continuously absent, however he has been exonerated in the inquiry report under Annexure-5 to the writ application. He further contended that the entire inquiry was conducted in a arbitrary manner and that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to put forth his case. On such ground, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry report under Annexure-5 is totally vitiated, therefore the same is likely to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the complaint under Annexure-6 dated 27.08.2024 contended that the said complaint was lodged by the Opposite Party No.5 before the Senior ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara inter alia alleging that he has not been allowed to attend the meetings of the PACS Ltd. In reply to the complaint under Annexure-6, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the resolution dated 24.07.2024, under Page 3 of 7. Annexure-4 and contended that it has been resolved by the abovenamed PACS in its meeting that the Oppoiste Party No.5 despite getting notice, was not attending the meetings of the PACS Ltd. Therefore, he was ineligible to continue as member of the Managing Company of the abovenamed PACS Ltd. He further contended that on the basis of the complaint under Annexure-6 the inquiry was ordered by the ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara, however the inquiry has not been conducted as per law, therefore, the entire inquiry is vitiated and as such report submitted by the ARCS, Kendrapara is unsustainable in law.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that pursuant to the complaint an inquiry was ordered by the Senior ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara and the same was conducted by the ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara in accordance with law. Therefore, no fault can be found either in the inquiry process of the Senior ARCS inquiry officers or in the enquiry report submitted under Annexure-5. He further submitted that the inquiry report and consequential order passed by the ARCS is appealable on under Section 109 or the same can be revised by the Registrar/Additional Registrar, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 112 of the Act. Further referring to the provisions contained under Section 112 of the Act, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Registrar of the Co-operative society has power to call for any record of any proceeding and examining the same in the cases in which no appeal lies for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of any decision passed. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State further contended that the present writ application is not maintainable and the petitioner should Page 4 of 7. have approached the Registrar Cooperative Society, Odisha submitted to this Court.
8. In reply to the aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional power under Section 112 can only be exercised by the RACS only in the cases where the order is not an appealable one. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-5 not revisable.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of the submissions made and further on a scrutiny of the materials available on record as well as the provisions of law, this Court observes that the petitioner being aggrieved by the letter dated 12.12.2024 under Annexure-5 as well as the inquiry report attached thereto has approached this Court by filing of the present writ application. It was also prayed for quashing of the enquiry report and the letter dated 12.12.2024, under Annexure-5. It is not disputed that on the basis of the complaint under Annexure-6 an inquiry was ordered by the Senior ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara and pursuant to which an inquiry was conducted by the concerned ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that while conducting such inquiry the ARCS has not followed the procedure as provided as rules as well as by law of the society.
10. On a careful scrutiny of the provisions contained in Section 112 it appears that the Registrar or Additional Registrar have been vested with power of a revision and in exercise of such revisional power they have been authorised to call for examining the record for Page 5 of 7. any proceeding before the authority subordinate to them in which no appeal lies. In the instant case, the petitioner being aggrieved by the conduct of the senior ARCS, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara under Annexure-5 has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Therefore, it is not disputed that the impugned order has been passed by ARCS who is subordinate to the RCS, Odisha. The only difficulty in exercise of the revisional power by the RCS is that such power can only be exercised where no appeal lies. In the present case it is observed that since no presiding officer is available in the Odisha, Cooperative Tribunal, the Tribunal has become defunct. Therefore, the provisions with regard to appeal that has been provided under Section 109 cannot be given effect to. Thus, this court has no hesitation in coming to conclusion that since no appeal can be filed by the petitioner and in absence of no presiding officers no such appeal can be entertained. Therefore, the provisions of such Section 109 cannot be given effect to as such the impugned order under annexure-5 is not an appealable one. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to coming to a conclusion that the ARCS, Odisha can exercise the revisional power under Section 112 of Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962.
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis of law, further keeping in view the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the view that the Registrar Cooperative Society is a competent authority who can examine the entire issue and addressed the grievance of the petitioner by calling for the record. Accordingly, it is directed that let the petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of today's order within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, he approaches the RCS Odisha by filing the Page 6 of 7. appropriate application Opposite Party No.2 shall consider such application under Section 112 of the OCS Act, 1962 by calling for record, provide opportunity of hearing to the parties and dispose of the revision application of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing an application as has been directed hereinabove. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such final decision. Liberty is given to the petitioner to move any interim application before the RCS, Odisha, Opposite Party No.2 and in such Eventuality Opposite Party No.2, RCS, Odisha shall pass necessary interim orders in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.
13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 7 of 7.
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Feb-2025 09:53:10