1 2025:CGHC:40108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4232 of 2025 1 - Smt. Triveni Sahu W/o Jagatram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Kacchey Post Ardongri Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries Mahanadi Bhavan Ministry New Raipur C.G. 2 - Registrar Firms And Societies Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhavan Block Third Floor Atal Nagar Raipur C.G. 3 - Transport Professional Welfare Union Kacchey Through President, Village Kacchey Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Shri Harish Chandra Kawde) 4 - Yogeshwar Sahu S/o Late Jaggu Ram Service At Bhilai Steel Plant Branch Dalli Rajhara Mines R/o Qt No. 313 A 2 B Type Pandartalli Dalli Rajhara Pin Code 491228 5 - Jitendra Jaiswal Who Is The Ex-Chairperson Cum President Of The Transporter Commercial Federation Union At Village Kacchey District North Baster Kanker C.G. 6 - Kanti Hindko As Present Chairperson Of The Transporter Commercial Federation Union Village Kacchey R/o Kacchey District North Bastar Kanker C G Pin Code 494635 Present Work At Sarpanch Kacchey. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and thereby set- aside the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Registrar Firms and Co-operative Societies Union Raipur in case No. Comp 08/2023 and thereby dissolve the Transport Union Kacchey and hand over the charge of the transport union Kacchey to the Village Committee Kacchey or any other suitable person who performs the duties in the protection of the interest of the member of the Transport Union Kacchey. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby the petitioner Triveni Sahu may kindly be compensated for an amount of Rs. 3,57,00,000/- Three Crores Fifty Seven thousand rupees from the respondent Yogeshwar Kumar Sahu, Jitendra Jaiswal and Kanti Hidko either jointly or severally in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the court deem fit 3 may kindly be provided in favour of the petitioner against the respondent in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that order no Complaint-08/23 dated 07.04.2022 passed by Registrar Firms and Co- operative Societies C.G. as per Annexure P/1 being in contravention of the proposal letter dated 01.06.2021 for dissolution of the Transport union Kacchey because the Transport union Kacchey has running the union not as per the safety of the interest of the members of the union and causing financial irregularities and dismissed the application dated 09.9.2021 and 29.09.2021 as submitted by the petitioner Triveni Sahu on the ground that the said application is not filed as per provision of Section 32(2) of C.G. Society Registration Act, 1973 that the application has not being filed as per majority members of the Transport union Kacchey or not filed as per 1/3 members of the transport union Kacchey and not applied the Suo moto action for taking action against the Transport union Kacchey by seeing the proposal for dissolution of the Transport Union Kacchey as sent by the Collector District North Bastar Kanker which received by the said registrar firms Raipur on 04.06.2021. 3. Learned State counsel opposed the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is appealable under Section 40 of the C.G. Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4 07.04.2022 passed by the Registrar Firms and Societies, C.G. under Section 32 of the C.G. Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 which is an appealable order under Section 40 of Adhiniyam, 1973. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed the present petition after lapse of 3 years. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear that petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and also the present petition has been filed after lapse of 3 years. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima