Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1017 (CHH)

RAMKISHUN DEWANGAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/2442/2026 · 2026-03-17

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:12905 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2442 of 2026 1 - Ramkishun Dewangan S/o Shri Gend Ram Dewangan Aged About 46 Years R/o Nagar Pnchayat Kunra Bajrang Chowk, Ward No-12, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Village Industries (Gramodyog) Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Village Industries (Handloom) Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Handloom Development And Marketing Cooperative Federation Maryadit B-26, Sector-07, New Rajendra Nagar Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 18/03/2026 1. Learned State counsel raises an objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that petitioner is having remedy available under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The order which is under challenge in this writ petition is dated 12.01.2026, whereby petitioner is suspended alleging commission of misconduct.. 2. Sub-section 2 of Section 55 of the Act of 1960 provides that proceedings is to be filed before the Registrar or any Officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar against the dispute including the dispute of disciplinary action taken by the society. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court, petitioner is having the remedy available under the Act of 1960. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed, reserving liberty with the petitioner to avail other alternate remedy available under law. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram