Hari Ram Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3226 of 2017 Hari Ram Verma, Aged 68 years S/o Late Shri Jivdhan Prasad Verma R/o Village Raita, Block Dharsiwa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture And Sahakarita, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Director Agriculture And Sahakarita Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, Raipur, Through Its Managing Director Ketala Bhawan Civil Line, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

4. Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Through Its Chairman/ Authorized Officer G. E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Chaubey Colony G. E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

6. Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Floor- III, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents Ms. Ruchi Nagar, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Rajat Agrawal, counsel under instructions from Shri S.C.Verma, counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 11/08/2017 Heard.

1.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of recovery passed by the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur. 2.

The petitioner was allegedly entrusted with certain quantities of agricultural products like seeds, organic fertilizer and other chemicals. The petitioner was required to sell/distribute the products to the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative

Societies; however, he failed to disposed off the entire quantity because he had collected the materials in large quantities, over and above the quantity which he could actually sell to the Primary Credit Cooperative Societies within his jurisdiction. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing before making the subject recovery. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank would submit that if the petitioner makes a representation submitting in detail the grounds on which he can prove his innocence, the Bank is willing to give him an opportunity and pass fresh order in accordance with law. 4.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction that in the event the petitioner makes a representation before the respondent-Bank within a period of one month from today, the Bank shall consider and decide the representation on its own merits and pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing to the petitioner. 5.

If the occasion so arises, the petitioner would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Deepti