Sushil Kumar Panore v. Collector-Cum-Authorized Officer

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.4988 OF 2019

1. Sushil Kumar Panore S/o Shri Janakram Panore Aged About 44 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Beside of Bela Apartment, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Collector-Cum-Authorized Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent No.2 :

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09.07.2019 1.

The petitioner through the present writ petition is seeking for a direction to the respondent No.2, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Bilaspur, for complying with the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society. 2.

The facts of the case is that, the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager with the respondent No.2-Bank and his services stood terminated vide order dated 29.09.2018. The termination order was challenged before this court in a writ petition which stood disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, the Act, 1960). The petitioner immediately raised a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Act, 1960 and the Joint Registrar, vide his order dated 31.01.2019 stayed the effect and operation of the termination order. The respondent

No.2-Bank moved an application for vacating stay which too stood rejected vide order dated 04.04.2019.

3.

Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that, though there is an interim order granted by the Joint Registrar, the respondent No.2-Bank is not complying with the said order.

4.

This court, at this stage, is of the opinion since the matter is already seized by a statutory authority and the authority has also passed certain orders, this court would not substitute itself for execution of that order passed by the statutory authority at this juncture particularly when the dispute itself is yet to be finally adjudicated. 5.

At the same time, it is also expected that once when the statutory authority passes an order, it should also ensure that the order is complied with by the authority in its letter and spirit. In case of non compliance of the order, the authority is expected to take appropriate action or steps for ensuring compliance. It is also expected that the Joint Registrar in the instant case decides the entire dispute itself at the earliest as this court on an earlier occasion had granted four months time for conclusion of the proceedings and it appears that the said period has already lapsed. 6.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition stands disposed of directing the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to ensure to take steps firstly ensuring compliance of its order passed and secondly to ensure that the entire dispute itself is finally adjudicated upon at the earliest.

7.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder