Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioners in W. P. No. 2902/94 are Presidents of the Housing Co-operative Societies functioning in Bhopal. They contend that the procedure adopted of Khula Manch is contrary to Constitution and the laws, particularly the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act), coercive power of the State was employed in the Khula Manch to threaten, intimidate and browbeat Presidents of the Societies, that the second respondent would dispose of the complaints by passing orders without any authority. In short, according to these petitioners, Khula Manch is a negation of rule of law. First petitioner also complains of illegal arrest and wrongful detention and late production before the competent Magistrate and filing of a false criminal case against him. Second petitioner, who was absent at the Bhopal Khula Manch complains that his father's presence was requisitioned by threat of imprisoning the son. The petitioners complain of humiliation and insult heaped upon them in the Khula Manch.

4. Petitioner in W. P. No. 3133 of 1994 is a supporter of the policy of holding Khula Manch. He points out that Khula Manch in Jabalpur in September 1994 was announced and several complaints were already received. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that these complaints are resolved at the earliest.

5. Petitioner in W. P. No. 3546 of 1994 is a Housing Co-operative Society in Raipur represented by its President. Khula Manch is being organised at Raipur and the petitioner seeks declarations that the Khula Manch is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from holding Khula Manch. Respondents 1 and 5 to 10 are represented by learned Advocate General. We find it unnecessary to issue notice to respondents 2 to 4.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions, learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the second respondent in W. P. No. 2902 of 1994 and the learned counsel representing the interveners.

7. The main question arising for consideration is whether there is any Constitutional or legal inhibition against the State Government organising Khula Manch to dispose of grievances and complaints of members of Housing Cooperative Societies vis a vis action or inaction of the Societies or their Presidents. In Writ Petition No. 2902 of 1994, there are averments in relation to Khula Manch at Indore. Since none of the parties interested in that Khula Manch is before us, we do not propose to deal with those averments. The attack on Khula Manch levelled in W. P. No. 2902 of 1994 is based on the manner in which Khula Manch at Bhopal was conducted and the alleged unlawful treatment meted out to the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner. Father of the second petitioner has not filed writ petition. Second petitioner has not filed an affidavit. However, since these allegations regarding Bhopal Khula Manch form the corner-stone of that writ petition as well as Writ Petition 3545 of 1994, we will first deal with the factual controversy regarding Khula Manch held at Bhopal.

15. Section 64 of the Act provides for reference of disputes to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for decision. There are provisions for appeal and revision. According to the petitioners, Registrar has to decide disputes in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of Limitation Act and Court Fees Act. The basic contention of the petitioners is that decisions are taken at the Khula Manch by the second respondent or officers of the Department and that is violative of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have not placed any reliable documentary material before us to show that the forum of Khula Manch was used to adjudicate disputes by pronouncement of decisions by any person. As explained in the returns, Khula Manch is conceived as a forum to settle long pending and outstanding grievances by mutual consent on the pattern of Lok Adalats. Respondents have made it repeatedly clear in the return that Khula Manch is no different from Lok Adalat which is based on mutual consent of both the parties. It is clear that nobody is obliged to give consent for settlement of any grievance or dispute. Consent is purely voluntary. In these circumstances, we rejected the contention that organising Khula Manch is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision.