Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Asha Ranglani vs Betul Citizens Cooperative Bank ... on 6 August, 2018

                                                         1                                 WP-17300-2018
                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                    WP-17300-2018
                             (ASHA RANGLANI Vs BETUL CITIZENS COOPERATIVE BANK MARYADIT)

           1
           Jabalpur, Dated : 06-08-2018
                 Ms. Anjali Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                 Shri Naveen Dubey, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset regrets that in paragrapah 2 of the petition, a wrong declaration is given that no proceeding is pending before any court, authority or tribunal whereas against the impugned order Annexure P-7, petitioner admittedly filed an appeal along with the stay application. Although the appeal and the stay application could not be filed along with the present petition, learned counsel submits that the appellate court has not decided her stay application till date. It is prayed that appellate court be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and till such decision is taken, she be given interim protection by passing appropriate orders.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner on this aspect.

Admittedly, petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. If her appeal and stay application is pending, I am only inclined to direct the competent appellate authority to take up the stay application and decide the same preferably within 15 days from the date of production of copy of this order. The appellate authority shall make endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously.

So far granting of interim order by this Court is concerned, the curtains are already drawn on this issue by the Supreme Court in a case reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 Kalabharti Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors., whereas in paragraph 22, it is held as under:

2 WP-17300-2018 "Court cannot be used only for interim relief

22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12] , Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 1305] , State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [AIR 1964 SC 685] , State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh “Balak†[AIR 1966 SC 1441 : 1966 Cri LJ 1076] and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70 : AIR 1975 SC 2238] .)"

3 WP-17300-2018 In the light of this judgment ,the question of passing of interim order does not arise.

The prayer for interim relief is rejected. The writ petition is disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE P/ Digitally signed by PREETI TIWARI Date: 06/08/2018 14:46:48