1 2026:CGHC:19814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2055 of 2026 1 - Zila Sahu Sang, Bemetara Through President Gendram Sahu (Affiliated By Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh, Raipur (Reg. No. 33/61)) President Zila Sahu Sangh, Bemetara, R/o Village- Shyampur- Kapa, Post Hatranka, Block- Saja, Tahsil- Than-Khamariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Cooperative, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Registrar, Firms And Societies Office Of The Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Block-1, Third Floor, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh, Raipur (Reg. No. 33/61) Office Situated At Shri Bhamashah Hostel, Sahu Complex, Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Dr. Nirendra Sahu State President, Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh, Raipur (Reg. No. 33/61), Office Situated At Shri Bhamashah Hostel, Sahu Complex, Tikrapara, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 5 - Shri Narad Sahu (Advocate) S/o Shri Chowaram Sahu R/o Ward No. 12, Bemetara (President Declared On 09/12/2025) Zila Sahu Sangh Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Nande, Advocate For State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (ii) Direct Dir Respondent SECL to forthwith release and pay the compensation amount as per Statement-1A pertaining to the Petitioners land, along with interest for delayed payment; (iii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure compliance of compensation disbursement within a time-bound period; 3 (iv) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, including costs of this petition.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is an elected President of Zila Sahu Sangh, Bemetara, having been duly elected in the year 2022 in accordance with the bye-laws of the parent society. The respondent No. 03 is a registered society governing the affairs of Sahu Samaj in the State, with a structured organizational hierarchy at district and other levels. Disputes arose in relation to the election process of Zila Sahu Sangh, Bemetara, particularly concerning alleged illegal enrollment of lifetime members through forged receipts prior to elections, which, according to the petitioner, vitiated the entire election process. Despite repeated objections and representations by the petitioner and other members, the respondent authorities proceeded with the election, and respondent No. 05 was declared elected as President. Aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 92/2026, wherein this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2026, directed the competent authority (Respondent No. 02) to consider and decide the dispute within a stipulated time. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were initiated; however, instead of adjudicating the dispute on merits, Respondent No. 02, vide order dated 17.03.2026, relegated the matter to Respondent Nos. 03 and 04 for internal resolution. 4 Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on 01.04.2026 before the competent appellate authority, which is stated to be pending consideration. During the pendency of the said appeal, Respondent No. 03 issued a communication dated 05.04.2026, purportedly deciding the dispute ex parte and directing handing over of charge to Respondent No. 05, thereby giving rise to the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 92/2026, wherein specific directions were issued, particularly in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, requiring the competent authority to decide the dispute in accordance with law. However, instead of complying with the said directions, the matter was mechanically relegated to Respondent No. 04 for resolving the dispute internally, which is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the order passed by this Court. It is further submitted that against the said order dated 17.03.2026, a statutory appeal is provided under the relevant law, and accordingly, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal on 01.04.2026 before the competent appellate authority, which is presently pending consideration. Learned counsel contends that during the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent authorities have proceeded to pass an ex parte order, whereby the President of District Sahu Sangh, Bemetara (Respondent No. 05), has been directed to hand over documents within a period of 5 15 days, with a further stipulation that failure to comply would result in termination of his membership. It is argued that such action is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law, particularly when the matter is sub judice before the appellate authority. It is thus submitted that once the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy and the appeal is pending consideration before the competent authority, the respondents ought to have awaited the outcome of the said proceedings instead of precipitating the matter by passing coercive and ex parte directions. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and liable to be interfered with, and that the District Sahu Sangh, Bemetara ought to await the final decision of the appellate authority before taking any further action in the matter. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by preferring an appeal on 01.04.2026 before the competent appellate authority, wherein all grievances raised in the present petition can be effectively adjudicated. It is contended that once the petitioner has approached the appellate authority, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as parallel proceedings cannot be permitted to be entertained before two different forums simultaneously. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, having invoked the appellate 6 jurisdiction, ought to pursue the said remedy in accordance with law and cannot be allowed to seek identical reliefs before this Court. It is thus submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability and invocation of an efficacious alternative remedy. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2026, has already preferred a statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority on 01.04.2026, which is presently pending consideration. It is also evident that the grievance sought to be raised in the present writ petition substantially overlaps with the issues involved in the said appeal. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy and the matter is sub judice before the appellate authority, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present petition on merits. However, considering the apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding the passing of ex parte orders during pendency of the appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to issue limited directions to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. 7 8. Accordingly, considering the fact that the appeal has already been preferred and is pending for consideration since 01.04.2026, the concerned appellate authority is directed to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file an interim application before the concerned appellate authority within a period of seven (7) days from today. Upon such filing, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the said interim application strictly in accordance with law within a further period of fifteen (15) days. Till a decision is taken on the interim application to be filed by the petitioner, any order passed by the District Sahu Sangh, Bemetara or any other authority in respect of the subject matter of dispute shall remain in abeyance and shall not be given effect to. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge