1 2025:CGHC:17071-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 235 of 2025 Vijay Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit Raipur, A Society Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Through Its President Shri Tej Kumar Bajaj, S/o Late Dr. C.J. Bajaj, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Katora Talab, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Cooperative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6. Shri D.K. Patel, Cooperative Inspector- Cum- Liquidator, Vijay Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti, Raipur Chhattisgarh Other Address, Office Of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Socities, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. SS Baghel, GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 15.04.2025. 1. Proceedings of the matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The present writ appeal has been preferred against an order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition (WPC No.1250/2016) filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was rejected/dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a society registered under the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘Act of 1960’). One Ramesh Varlayani and Yogesh Varlayani made a complaint against the appellant-Society with regard to financial irregularities, to which, the Co-operative Inspector was appointed as the enquiry officer. The appellant-society was directed to appear before the enquiry officer vide notice dated 24.04.2008. The appellant-society appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted its reply and denied the allegations. On completion of enquiry, enquiry officer submitted its report on 24.12.2008 and, based upon which, show cause notice was issued to the appellant-society on 08.05.2009. Thereafter, the appellant filed its reply to the show cause notice on 31.8.2009. Respondent No.5/Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society vide order dated 30.10.2009 appointed respondent No.6 as the Liquidator. The appellant-Society preferred an appeal before respondent No.4/Joint Registrar, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2011. Consequently, a second 3 appeal was preferred by the appellant-society against order dated 03.05.2011 and the same was also dismissed. 4. By way of writ petition (WPC No.1250 of 2016), appellant-society has challenged the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Appeal Case No. 86/2014, affirming the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal Case No. 77(1)/769 (R)/10 affirming the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by respondent No.5 in Case Order No. Grih Nirman/09/932/Raipur thereby appointing respondent No.6 as the Liquidator of the appellant-society. 5. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for appellant- society would submit that the appellant-society is a housing co- operative Society and it is not affiliated with any other society. Impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law as it was passed without considering the provisions of Section 8, 59, 60 and 69 of the Act of 1960. As per Section 59, the Registrar doesn't have the power to conduct an inquiry on the complaint of private person who is not the member of the Society. As per Section 60, the Registrar has power in his own motion to inquire into the books of the society. He further contended that order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Tribunal, affirming the order of the Registrar, in violation of Section 59 & 60 of the Act of 1960. The Tribunal has committed error in holding that the Society has not followed the principle of equity. The tribunal has illegally presumed that though copy of complaint is not 4 available on record of respondent No.4, yet the same was forwarded to the Enquiry Officer. The tribunal has incorrectly shifted burden on the appellant to show that the complainants are not the members of the appellant-society. He further contended that learned learned Single has failed to consider the fact that order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.942 of 2013 & Writ Petition (C) No.884 of 2013, whereby the notices was quashed with a clear finding that as per the provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 1960, the Registrar could have inquired into the society by his own motion that too on an application made by the persons defined under Section 59(1) of the Act of 1960. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may be allowed and impugned order be set-aside. It has been also pointed out that though the inquiry has been initiated against the appellant-society on the basis of complaint made by Ramesh Varlayani & Yogesh Varlayani but this complaint is not available on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly passed the impugned order, which warrants no interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. In the present case, allegations against the appellant-society is that the Society has failed to allot the plots to its members rather plots 5 were allotted to non-members of the society and no permission was obtained from the department. Based on complainant, enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 24.12.2008. In the enquiry report, the allegations made against the appellant-Society were found proved. 9. From perusal of the impugned order it transpires that learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has considered the enquiry report, findings recorded by the Registrar and Tribunal, order dated 30.10.2009 as well as provisions of Sections 8, 59, 60 & 69 of the Act of 1960, hence, submission of counsel for the appellant that impugned order has been passed without considering the Sections 8, 59, 60 & 69, is not correct. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J.