1 CGHC010117392020 2026:CGHC:37248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1247 of 2020 1 - Rajiv Chaubey S/o Late B.K. Chaubey, Aged About 52 Years Working as Chairman, Smriti Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, R/o A-79, Street No. 23, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smriti Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, through its Chairman Rajiv Chaubey S/o Late B.K. Chaubey, Aged About 52 Years, R/o A -79, Street No. 23, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Affairs, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Registrar Cooperative Society, Durg, Division Durg, Office At Bunkar Sangh, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - G.R. Kurrey Assistant Registrar (Incharge) Office At Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 – Sureshchandra, President Ispat Karmachari Society Limited, R/o Sector - 6, Bhilai Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners :Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 & 2 :Mr. Karan Baharani, Panel Lawyer RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.08.31 16:28:51 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 4 :Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the respective respondents have raised objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that petitioners have filed this writ petition against order Annexure P/1 dated 14.01.2020 passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Durg. He contended that the Registrar has only directed for enquiry on the application/compliant. The compliant is made by respondent No.4 against the respondent No.2 on 08.01.2020 and on that the enquiry report is called for by constituting Committee of 3 members. No adverse order has been passed against the respondent No.2/Society. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 is neither a member of the Society, nor a creditor and therefore, compliant submitted by respondent No.4 could not have been entertained. Further that the provision under Section 59(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act, 1960’) has not been complied with as the complainant has not deposited the requisite fees. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would oppose the submission made by petitioners and would submit that on the date of filing of compliant Annexure P/2 dated 08.01.2020, respondent 3 No.4 was the President of Ispat Karmachari Cooperative Society Limited and the compliant is filed as President of Ispat Karmachari Cooperative Society Limited. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also peruse the document enclosed with this writ petition as also reply submitted by the respective respondents. 5. When question is posed to learned counsel for the respondent No.4 about the status of respondent No.4, he submits that in the reply they have pleaded that on the date of filing of the compliant, respondent No.4 was President of Ispat Karmachari Cooperative Society Limited, but when Court further put query as to what are the supportive documents in this regard, he submits that no such document has been filed. Further when query was posed with regard to any document to suggest compliance of the Section 59(2) of Act, 1960 about depositing the requisite fees, he submits that in this regard, there is no pleading. Provision under Section 59 which is pressed upon by the counsel for the parties, is extracted below for ready reference : Section 59 – Inquiry. [(1) The Registrar may on his own motion or on the application of- (i) a society to which the society is affiliated; or (ii) a creditor to whom the society is indebted; or (iii) not less than one third of the members of the Board ; or (iv) not less than one-tenth of the total number of members of the society hold an inquiry or cause an inquiry to be made into the specific matters raised in the application 4 relating to the constitution, working and financial condition of the society. (2) The Registrar shall order an inquiry only after the receipt of a fee as may be prescribed, from the applicant or applicants, deemed sufficient to meet the costs of the inquiry to be conducted. (3) The inquiry shall be completed with in a period of four months from the date of ordering the inquiry. (4) The Registrar shall, within a period of one month from the date of completion of inquiry, communicate the report of the inquiry- (i) to the society concerned; (ii) to the applicants or the person designated by the applicants to receive such a report; (iii) any member of a society; (iv) federation of which the society is a member; (v) creditor; on payment of the prescribed fee] 6. Perusal of Subsection 1 of Section 59 would show that Registrar can direct enquiry of its own motion or on application of a Society or a creditor to whom the Society is inducted or on application of not less than 1/3rd of the member of the Board or members not less than 1/10th of the total number of members of the Society. 7. From the arguments made by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent that enquiry directed vide Annexure A/1 is based on the application and according to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.4, that respondent No.4 is creditor to whom the Society is inducted. Perusal of Subsection 2 of Section 59 would show that the Registrar shall order enquiry 5 only after the receipt of fees as may be prescribed to meet out the cost of enquiry to be conducted. In writ petition in para 8.5 specific plea has been raised by the petitioners that requisite fee has not been deposited nor there is compliance of provision under Section 59 and directing enquiry is violation of provision under Section 59(1) and further of non-compliance of provision under Section 59(2) if the complainant falls within the category as provided under Section 59 (1). 8. The provision under Section 59 is very clear as to who can file a complaint before the authority for enquiry against the Society and further the enquiry can be directed only after receipt of requisite fee as may be prescribed for meeting out cost of the enquiry. 9. In the facts of the case, documents available on record, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.4 could not able to make out case that he on the date of filing of the compliant was elected President of the Society by showing specific documents and further no receipt has been placed on record by respondent No.4 to show that requisite fee has been deposited. 10. In absence of the above two conditions, in the opinion of this Court, it is to be enquired by the Joint Registrar before whom the application/compliant was filed by respondent No.4 and therefore, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to first verify the credential of the complainant as to whether 6 he is falling within the categories of complainant/applicant, who can file a compliant seeking enquiry or not and further that whether the fee as provided under Subsection 2 of Section 59 has been deposited or not and thereafter to pass a fresh order on the complaint/application made by respondent No.4, thereafter to proceed further. Let decision be taken by respondent No.2 in this regard within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. 11. Till the decision is taken by the respondent No.2 afresh, interim order passed by this Court shall continue to remain in force. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi