2026:JHHC:22255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1864 of 2014 ------ 1(a) Arbind Kumar Modi, son of Late Krishnadeo Modi, Resident of D-102, Satyamev Riviera, Behind Sirirang Oasis, Gift City Road, Randesan Dhinagar, Dist: Gandhinagar, State Gujarat 1(b) Ravindra Nath, son of Late Krishnadeo Modi, Resident of H. No.-244, near Sliv Mandir, Chandwara Poorvi Gali, Pachhim Chandwara, P.O., P.S. and District Koderma, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at: Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Town & District Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma 4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Koderma Circle, Koderma 7. The District Co-operative Officer, Koderma 8. The District Audit officer, Co-operative Societies, Koderma 9. Sri Deoraj Prasad, S/o. Late Shiv Nath Prasad, the then Block Co- operative Extension officer, Koderma resident of: North Shivpuri, P.O & P.S. Hazaribagh Sadar, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand 10. Shri Uday Shankar Sinha, S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Sinha, the then District Audit Officer, Koderma, Distroct Koderma, resident of: Krishna Nagar, Bariatu Road, C/o. Arun Kumar, P.O & P.S: Bariatu, Distrct Ranchi 11. The Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Chandwara, P.O & P.S: Chandwara, District Koderma .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1 to 8- State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C. I Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.C. to S.C. I For the Respondent No.9 : None For the Respondent No.10 : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent No.11 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate ------ 12/28.07.2026 Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 8- State, Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent no.10 and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh for respondent no.11. 2. Notice upon respondent no.9 has been served however, he has chosen not to appear. This matter is of the year 2014. In view of that this writ petition is being heard in absence of respondent no.9. 3. In the present writ petition following prayers are made: 2026:JHHC:22255 2 I. To quash the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the respondent no.4 in Surcharge Case No.23/2012 whereby and whereby the opposite parties petitioners have been surcharged with Rs.6,78,033/- and Rs.4,70,499/- respectively along with compounded statutory interest till date of deposit. II. To quash the entire proceeding arising out of Surcharge Case No.23/2012 on the ground that the same has been initiated without any jurisdiction and is not in accordance with law. III. To quash the report dated 10.08.2012 submitted by respondent no.8 and one more member of the three member enquiry committee in spite of removal of respondent no.9 as a member of the committee and in spite of transfer of respondent no.9 much before the submission of the report. IV. To quash the surcharge proposal dated 08.10.2012 prepared by respondent no.8 and sent to the respondent no.3 on the basis of the report dated 10.08.2012 submitted by the respondent no.9. V. To quash the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the respondent no.5 in Surcharge Case No.23/2012 as the same is without jurisdiction. VI. Pass such other order/orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and VII. During the pendency of the present application, the operation of the impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed in Surcharge Case No.23/2012 as also the effect and operation of the illegal enquiry report dated 10.08.2012 may be stayed. 4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners were the Chairman of the Chandrwara Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to ‘PACCS’). He submits that the PACCS has its own Bye Laws and is also governed by the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and the business of the said PACCS is being governed as per the bye laws. 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar next submits that a three member enquiry committee was constituted by the order of the District Co-operative Officer, Koderma vide letter No.241 dated 20.07.2012 to enquire into the affairs of the PACCS, Chandwara and that was constituted pursuant to the oral direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. Thereafter, a three member 2026:JHHC:22255 3 enquiry committee was constituted consisting of (i) Sri Deoraj Prasad, Block Co-operative Officer, Chandwara (ii) Sri Uday Shanker Sinha, District Audit officer, Koderma (iii) Sri Deo Narain Ravidas, Block Co-operative Officer - cum- Development officer, ICDP, Koderma. 6. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 27.07.2012, a complaint was made by the petitioner No.1 against Shri Deoraj Prasad stating that Sri Deoraj Prasad has formed a forged and parallel society and made the said society a stockiest of IFFCO and Sri Deoraj Prasad has also misappropriated a Rs.3,50,000/- of the Barkatha Block, Gaurhar PACCS. He next submits that on the said complaint of the petitioner, the matter was enquired into by the concerned respondents against Shri Deoraj Prasad and show cause notice was issued to Sri Deoraj Prasad vide letter dated 30.07.2012 asking Sri Deoraj Prasad to submit his reply. He submits that in view of that the petitioners raised objection on the appointment of Sri Deoraj Prasad as a member of the enquiry committee vide letter dated 03.08.2012 and thereafter, the said Deoraj Prasad has been removed from the enquiry committee by the letter dated 10.08.2012 and he was also transferred thereafter. He further submits that the report was submitted by the two of the members namely Uday Shankar Sinha and Deoraj Prasad however, Deoraj Prasad was already removed and transferred earlier and enquiry report has been submitted on 11.08.2012 and the third member never participated in the enquiry. He submits that all these aspects have been raised before the Registrar and he has not taken into consideration these aspects. 7. Mr. Sachin Kumar further submits that the enquiry itself was without jurisdiction and in view of that, the High Court can entertain the writ petition. He also submits that this matter is of the year 2014 and at this stage on the ground of alternative remedy, the matter may not be sent back to the appellate authority. He next submits that the order is non-speaking. 8. He also submits that for the same allegation, FIR was registered and the petitioners have faced the trial and have been acquitted. He further submits that if the initial foundation itself has got no leg to stand, the entire proceedings are vitiated and in view of that, the writ petition may kindly be allowed. 9. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayed and submits that the petitioners are having 2026:JHHC:22255 4 alternative remedy. He submits that the order of removal of Deoraj Prasad has not been communicated and in view of that he has submitted the report. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 10. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.11 submits that at the time of filing Vakalatnama, the respondent no.11 was the Chairman of newly constituted PACCS. He submits that the respondent no.11 has come into picture later on and at the relevant time of dispute, he was not the Chairman. 11. Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.10 also opposed the prayer and submits that the respondent no.10 was one of the members of the said committee which is also under challenge. He submits that the surcharge proceeding has rightly been initiated. He also submits that respondent no.10 was also the District Audit Officer of the Koderma District. 12. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the court finds that there is no doubt that there is alternative remedy under Section 40(3) of Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 however, it is further well settled that if the order is without jurisdiction, directly the writ petition can be entertained and further, this writ petition is of the year 2014 and much time has already lapsed and to remand the matter, will also prejudice the right of the petitioner. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Whirpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein in para 14 and 15 it has been held as under: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of 2026:JHHC:22255 5 the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 13. After lapse of much time, remanding of the writ petition is also not appreciable, reference may be made to the case of Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. Chief General Manager and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400 wherein in para 8 it has been held as under: 8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence. 14. Further, the entire proceeding has been initiated pursuant to the appointment of the three members committee, in which three persons were appointed namely (i) Sri Deoraj Prasad, Block Co-operative Officer, Chandwara (ii) Sri Uday Shanker Sinha, District Audit officer, Koderma (iii) Sri Deo Narain Ravidas, Block Co-operative Officer -cum- Development officer, ICDP, Koderma. The petitioner filed a complaint against Deoraj Prasad that has been noted in the argument by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that said Deoraj Prasad was also one of the members of the said committee and pursuant to the objection made by the petitioner, the said Deoraj Prasad was removed from the member of the said committee by order dated 10.08.2012 however, in spite of that he has also signed the enquiry report and submitted the same on 11.08.2012. 15. It has been pointed out that member namely Deo Narain Ravidas has not participated in the said enquiry from the beginning. Thus, it is clear that the said report was submitted by one of the members, who was already removed from the said committee and based on the said report, the entire proceedings have been initiated. It is well settled that once the basis of proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, then subsequent order will fall. Reference may be made to the 2026:JHHC:22255 6 case of Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 wherein in para 27 it has been held as under: 27. This flows from the general principle applicable to "consequential orders". Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime like the recommendation of the State and by the UPSC and the action taken thereon would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. In other words, where an order is passed by an authority and its validity is being reconsidered by a superior authority (like the Governor in this case) and if before the superior authority has given its decision, some further action has been taken on the basis of the initial order of the primary authority, then such further action will fall to the ground the moment the superior authority has set aside the primary order. 16. Here in the case in hand, on a report of the committee that too by a person who has already been removed from the said committee by the competent authority, the action has been taken. In view of that the entire proceeding, subsequently are vitiated however, allegations are there of misappropriation of fund of the said PACCS which has been denied by the petitioners. 17. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed in Surcharge Case No.23/2012 is hereby, quashed. Consequently, the matter is being sent back to the Registrar (respondent no.4) who will re-constitute a fresh committee to enquire into the charges against the petitioners and after having the report by the independent new committee, he will proceed further in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the earlier order. 18. This writ petition is allowed with the above observation. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 28.07.2026 Anit A.F.R. Uploaded 29.07.2026