1 2025:CGHC:21373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1970 of 2025 1 - M/s Mahaveer Construction Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shirish Tiwari S/o Shri Arun Tiwari, Aged About 50 Years, New Shanti Nagar Road No. 6, In Front Of Yuvi Provision, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd. Through Chief Executive Officer, Head Office At G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Board Of District Co - Operative Central Bank Through Chief Executive Officer, Head Office At G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Staff Sub Committee Of Bank Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Co- Operative Central Bank Ltd. Head Office At G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Registrar-Cum-Commissioner Co-Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Resp. No. 2 to 4: Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to convene the meeting and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of memo dated 23.01.2025 (Annex. P-12) and legal opinion (Annex. P-8) & report (Ann. P-11) within any stipulated period of time, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 preferable within a period on 1 month, in the interest of justice. 10.2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and impugned order dated 27.06.2019 (Anne. P-7) issued by the respondent no. 4 may kindly be set-aside, so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice. 10.3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, a Construction Firm, has filed the present petition not against any specific order but to challenge the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the failure of the respondents to withdraw or cancel the order dated 27.06.2019, despite a legal opinion favoring such withdrawal. The said order, issued by respondent no. 4, pertains to a departmental inquiry in which the Branch Manager of Tilda Branch of the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. was found guilty and penalized with demotion and stoppage of increment. However, in the same order, respondent no. 4 also directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner, even though the petitioner was not an employee of the bank. The petitioner challenged this order before the Hon’ble High Court in WPC No. 2287/2020, and notices were issued to the respondents. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent no. 2, explaining that the sum of Rs. 29,87,078.00, which had been erroneously deposited into its account, was refunded promptly through two cheques. On this basis, the petitioner argued that the direction to lodge an FIR was unwarranted. In response, respondent no. 2 sought 3 a legal opinion, which confirmed that the authority of Staff Committee extended only to bank employees and not to third parties such as the petitioner. The legal counsel further advised that, since the amount had already been repaid, the order dated 27.06.2019 could be withdrawn. This legal opinion was communicated to the petitioner, along with the information that, due to the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents were unable to proceed and that the petitioner should consider withdrawing the petition. Acting on this assurance, the petitioner filed an application to withdraw WPC No. 2287/2020, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court on 16.01.2024, with liberty to revive the matter if necessary. Following this, the petitioner again approached the respondent authorities, urging them to act on the matter. However, despite repeated representations and the passage of over a year since the withdrawal of the earlier petition, the respondents have not taken any decision, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not withdrawing or cancelling the order dated 27.06.2019 is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. It was contended that after obtaining a legal opinion and a fact-finding report from the CEO, the respondent authorities had assured the petitioner that a favourable decision would be taken in his case. Relying on this assurance, the petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition. However, despite the withdrawal, the respondents have failed to take any decision, thereby arbitrarily sitting over the matter. It is further submitted that the petitioner has time and again informed the respondents about the withdrawal of the writ petition and has made several representations for a decision to be taken in his case, but no action has been initiated. It was argued that 4 the impugned order dated 27.06.2019, if allowed to stand, poses a continuing threat to the reputation of the petitioner and future, despite the fact that the order was passed without any authority of law, as the Staff Sub-Committee had no jurisdiction to act against a non-employee of the Bank. It was further submitted that the petitioner played no active role in the incident forming the basis of the order. The petitioner neither opened any Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) account worth Rs. 25 lakhs, nor requested such a transaction, and this fact is confirmed by the own documents of the Bank. Therefore, if any funds were erroneously credited to the account of the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible. Moreover, the petitioner promptly refunded the amount upon being informed of the error, indicating absence of any mens rea. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the departmental inquiry held by the Bank had clearly established the guilt of the concerned Branch Manager, who was penalized accordingly, and even admitted to the wrongdoing. Despite this, the respondent no. 4 unjustifiably directed the filing of an FIR against the petitioner, even though there was no allegation of misappropriation or misrepresentation against him. It was argued that the audit report of the petitioner transparently recorded the transaction, which also negates any suspicion of foul play. It was further submitted that the petitioner was neither a party to the departmental inquiry nor was he cited as a witness or given an opportunity of hearing. Still, an adverse order was passed against him without following principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the direction to register an FIR against the petitioner, without any wrongful gain or loss and after complete refund of the amount, is not only unjustified but also reflects bias on the part of respondent no. 4, as 5 only the petitioner has been singled out for criminal action despite the primary wrongdoer being the Bank employee. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a decision has already been taken by the respondents No. 2 to 4 and matter has been referred to the respondent No. 5 for taking a decision. Petitioner is praying for limited relief seeking a direction to the respondent No. 5 / Registrar- Cum-Commissioner to take decision and pass appropriate orders within some stipulated period in accordance with law. 4. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners seeking a direction to the concerned respondents to decide the representation, he is having no objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. In view of the above submissions and considering the limited nature of the relief sought, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 5 / Registrar-Cum-Commissioner to consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE