2025:UHC:103-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI 6TH JANUARY, 2025 WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 165 OF 2024 Koriyal Sariyal …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. JUDGMENT : (per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation is preferred seeking for the following prayers:- “a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent authorities to conduct a comprehensive enquiry with respect to the misappropriation / embezzlement of cadre funds of the Primary Co-operative Societies in District Uttarkashi through an independent high level inquiry committee or to constitute an independent investigation to look into the matter in respect to the Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent authorities to call for the entire records of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies in District Uttarkashi. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to take 2025:UHC:103-DB 2 appropriate penal actions / proceedings against the erring persons who are responsible in siphoning the cadre funds of the Primary Co-operative societies in District Uttarkashi by violating the provisions of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Society Act, 2003.” 3. The crux of the case canvassed by the petitioner is that the information received by the petitioner under the RTI Act indicate embezzlement, and hence the instant Public Interest Litigation. 4. We have perused the provisions and ambit of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and a con-joint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 3, 64 & 65 of the Act clearly indicates that the petitioner can avail of the remedies provided under Sections 64 and 65 of the Act and may approach the Competent Authority, i.e. the Registrar or the person appointed by the Registrar to look into the affairs of the Society. 5. 5. In that view, we dispose of the instant Public Interest Litigation with liberty to the petitioner to lodge a complaint with the Competent Authority, i.e. the Registrar or the person appointed by the Registrar and seek for an inspection or inquiry by the Registrar in terms of Sections 64 & 65 of the Act. 2025:UHC:103-DB 3 6. In the event, such representations are made, the Competent Authority shall cause notice and take-up the complaint for determination and disposal of the same strictly in accordance with law. The complaint shall be taken-up for consideration within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the complaint and also all such material as may be required by the Registrar. In the event, the Registrar is found wanting and no action in accordance with law is taken within the time as stipulated, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court for re-hearing on the same set of facts. 7. As a sequel thereto, all pending applications stand disposed of. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 6th January, 2025 Rathour