Ward v. Collector
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
this petition is dismissed with Uberty to avail
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of avaflabflity of cxpedittous and effteacious altemative reinedy of statutoiy appeal to fhe pctitkiiaer under ( the provisions of fhe CUhattisgarh Co-opeiative Societies Act, 1960, this petition is dismissed with Uberty to avail altematwe rcincdy of appeal available to htm under fhe…
Judgment
..tf: "^^ Shri K.B. Tripathi, Aged about 55 years, R/o Old Civil Lines ^S-"' 13, Rajnandgaon Ward, C C w n n fn D /^ /^ f /4 No. rl ;t<;( i ; ^•p^v"'...-'-''' )y'^€^ t^. ^<>L>\^" (C-G-) ^^^•^ ^^' <6y ^8?' VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /1) Collector, Chairman Cum-Nominated District Co-op-central Bank Maryadit, Head office G. E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). District The Co-Op-central Bank Maryadit, Head Office Rajnandgaon General Manager Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Through /3-) The Manager, Distt. Co-op-central Bank; H.O. Rajnandgaon. (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT/ WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANADAMUS AND/OR CERTIORARI AND/OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WR l^ 'OR' DIECTIONS. \0./' .•(-l';3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pctitmn No. 2137 of20Q6 Petitioner Rewati Raman Tripathi Vcrsus ^:.i Respoitdents CoBector Cum Nomuiated Chairmaa and ofhers 8Iaj?e Bcach; HonTale Mr. Justice Satfeh K. AgnUiotri. Shri Pradccp Kumar Mistua, coiinsel for the Petitfauer, Sbri Satish Gupta, Deputy Ck>vemmcnt Advocate for thc State. Shri A.K. Mfahra, oounsel for fhe Caveator. ORAL ORDBR (28^April, 2006)
Thc prescnt petition fited imdcr Ardclc 226 of Constitutfon of India impugns thc terminattoa order dated
12.1.2006 (Aimexure P/20) passcd by the Maaager, District Co-operative Cfcatral Baiik Lmuted, Rajnandgaon and the order dated 4.2.2006 (Aimexure P/22) again passed by fhe Manager, District Co-opcrative Cential Bank Liaiited, Rajnandgain. Srction 55 (2) ofthe Cbhattisg^rh Co-operatise Societies Act, 1960 providcs for appeal to the Registrar or aay officer appomtmeat by han iiot below the isaak of Assistant Registrar, in case of the dispute regarding terms of employment, worldng conditioa aad discq>linary actioa. bctween a society aiid its employecs. The remcdy of statutoiy appeal provided is efBcacious aiid cxpeditbus. The petitmncr ought to have availed the altematwe remedy of statutoty appeal before coiniog to fhis Court under Artick 286 of fhe Conjstitutfon of India. Scction 55 (2) of fhe Chhattisgarh Co- operative Socicties Act, 1960 reads as under ;- "(2) Where a dispute, mcludmg a dispute re^tdmg terms of em.ploynient working conditkins and disciplinary acdon taken by a society, arises between a sociely aad its einployccs, tfae Registrar or aay of&ccr appoiuted by Tiim not betow fhe raak of Assfataut Registear shaD. decide the dispute aad his decision shaU be binding on fhe society and its enaployees: Provided that fhe Registrar of fhe of Bccr referred to shaU not entertam the dispute unless presented to hiin wifhin thirty days fioin fhe date of order sought to bc unpugned: Provided further fhat in coinputmg the pertod of the time Umitation undcr fhe foregoing proviso, requjsite for obtaining copy of fhe order shall be excluded. "
Operative part
In view of avaflabflity of cxpedittous and effteacious altemative reinedy of statutoiy appeal to fhe pctitkiiaer under ( the provisions of fhe CUhattisgarh Co-opeiative Societies Act, 1960, this petition is dismissed with Uberty to avail altematwe rcincdy of appeal available to htm under fhe statutoiy provisions. No oider as to costs. Sal- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Bablu
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: this petition is dismissed with Uberty to avail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Co-operatise Societies Act, 1960; Socicties Act, 1960; CUhattisgarh Co-opeiative Societies Act, 1960.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.