1 2025:CGHC:15987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 981 of 2015 • Smriti Grih Nirman Co-operative Society Limited, Smriti Nagar, Junwani Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, Through The President/ Chairman Rajeev Choubey, Aged About 43 Years, S/o Shri B.K. Choubey, R/o Smriti Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh........................... Appellant ... Petitioner Versus • Jaypal Singh S/o Shri Samay Singh, R/o Quarter No. 6- A, Street No. 32, Sector - 5, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..................… Non Appellant ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i To kindly call for the records of the case from the learned court below. 10.ii To kindly set aside the order passed by the learned President, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) on 20/08/2015 in Appeal Case No. 46/2014 (Smriti Grih Nirman Co-operation Society Vs. Jaypal Singh). 10.iii To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent applied for allotment of a plot under the petitioner at the shopping complex Smriti Nagar, Bhilai for the construction of a shop. The petitioner allotted Plot No. C- 157, area 250 sq.ft. for the construction of the shop on 08.12.1986 with a condition that the respondent would construct a shop within a period of one year. Except for development charges, other dues were paid by the respondent. The respondent could not construct the shop within a period of one year, therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 03.02.2003 calling for an explanation from the respondent to deposit development charges. The respondent failed to submit any response and time was extended by the petitioner up to 25.10.1993. Notices were issued to the respondent on 18.02.1994, 26.07.1995 and 04.12.1995 and thereafter the allotment of the shop to the respondent was cancelled vide order dated 29.08.2002. The respondent challenged the order dated 29.8.2002 by raising a dispute before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Raipur, it was allowed and the petitioner was directed to get the membership of society and thereafter the society was directed to allot a shop. The respondent preferred an appeal according to the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Joint Registrar making a prayer that there is no requirement to obtain membership of the society as he has claimed allotment of the shop and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 02.07.2003. 3. The petitioner herein challenged the said order by filing a second appeal and it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.01.2008. The petitioner moved an application for restoration of the second appeal 3 which was dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2009, but the fact was not disclosed that the earlier application for restoration has been dismissed 23.02.2008 for want of prosecution. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by Advocate appearing for the petitioner and after the perusal of records, rejected the subsequent application for restoration on the ground that the correct facts were not disclosed. 4. Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach while rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for restoration. He would further submit that the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.01.2008, the first application for restoration was dismissed on 23.02.2008 and on 09.01.2009 another application was moved for restoration, but the fact of rejection of the earlier application for restoration was not mentioned in that application. 5. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner failed to disclose the dismissal of the earlier application for restoration in the subsequent application, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal rightly rejected the same. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti