1 2025:CGHC:19938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2143 of 2025 1 - Jai Jhadeshwar Parivahan Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nagarnar, A Society Duly Registered Under Relevant Provisions Of C.G. Societies Registration Act Having Registration No. Dr/btr/579 Dated 29.03.2012, Acting In The Premises Through Its Vice President Rainu Baghel, Son Of Shri Mangru Baghel, Aged About 45 Years, Jai Jhadeshwar Parivahan Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rainu Baghel S/o Shri Mangru Baghel Aged About 45 Years Vice President Of Jai Jhadeshwar Parivahan Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh And Resident Of Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Cooperative, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Deputy Commissioner And Sub Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Banmali Nag S/o Shri Sadhuram Nag Aged About 54 Years R/o Nagarnaar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioner's case from the authorities concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the order dated 17.4.2025 (Annexure P-1) being illegal, unreasonable and not in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Or A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue thereby ordering opportunity to defend to respondent No 4 as per Rule 43A (4) of the Rules of 1962 fixing the 3 day and date fixed for relevant motion either by this Hon'ble Court or by the authority concerned, directing all the parties/members constituting the Board of petitioner No.1 society to appear on the day and date so fixed. and thereafter to take decision on no-confidence motion in accordance with law. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that, the present case involves the question of whether the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by respondent No. 3, refusing to give approval to the no-confidence motion against respondent No. 4, is in accordance with the law. The only reason cited in the impugned order is the alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4. The petitioners contend that even if this reason were valid, the order should have included a direction permitting the society to reconvene the meeting, provide the required opportunity of hearing, and proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioners stated that the no-confidence motion was duly passed by 15 out of 21 members of the petitioner society in the presence of the concerned State authorities. Although, notices were served to respondent No. 4 regarding the meeting scheduled on 4 18.11.2024, he failed to appear. As a result, respondent No. 4 continues to act against the interests of the society and its members, rendering the society non-functional and causing disharmony among its constituents. No-confidence motion was passed democratically and that the only ground for its rejection is the alleged procedural lapse of not affording a hearing. Consequently, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking the intervention of the Hon’ble Court under its supervisory jurisdiction, along with appropriate incidental relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order refusing to grant sanction for the no-confidence motion is arbitrary and not sustainable in law. The only ground cited that no opportunity of hearing was given to respondent No. 4 under Rule 43 A (4) of the Rules of 1962 is incorrect, as due notice was served and Respondent No.4 chose not to appear. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 ought to have directed that an opportunity be given and the process continued in accordance with law, instead of outright rejecting the motion. The failure to do so frustrates the object of the society and necessitates the intervention of this Hon’ble Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, along with the limited prayer made by the petitioner's counsel. Instead of granting any direct relief, the court has remitted the matter back to the concerned respondent authorities. The authorities have been directed to provide the petitioners a fair and proper opportunity to raise their objections against Respondent No. 4, specifically in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 43A(4) of the Rules of 1962. Following this, the respondent authorities are required to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the law. This ensures that due process is followed and the petitioners are given a reasonable chance to be heard. 7. With this observation/directions, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat