Rajesh Kumar Joshi v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 2328 of 2020

1. Rajesh Kumar Joshi Son Of Late Shri Amrit Lal Joshi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o - B-34, Om Zone, Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Renu Joshi W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Joshi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o- B-34, Om Zone, Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Smt. Bindu Dave D/o Late Shri Amrit Lal Joshi, Aged About 62 Years, R/o- In Front Of Anand Apartment, 27 Kholi, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Kiran Awasthi W/o Shri Arun Awasthi, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Asha Pandya W/o Shri Anit Pandya, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Palace Achard, C-62, Behind Shalimar Garden, Kotar Road, Bhopal, Dist.- Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Central Registrar, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare Department Of Agriculture Co-Operation And Farmers Welfare Office Of The Central Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi

2. Commissioner, Office Of The Central Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare Department Agriculture, Cooperation And Farmers Welfare Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi

3. Registrar Adarsh Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Registration No. MSCS/CR/269/2008 Central Office Udaipur (Rajasthan)

4. H.S. Patel Liquidator, Adarsh Credit, Co-Operative Society Ltd. 14, Vidya Vihar Colony, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad - 380013, Gujrat ---- Respondents

For Petitioners :

Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Union of India :

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 12.10.2020

1. The limited grievance that the petitioners have raised in this case is that the petitioners had made certain deposits in the respondent No.3 Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. under various schemes and heads, however, subsequently the respondent No.3 establishment was closed and at the instance of respondent No.1, a Liquidator was also appointed i.e. respondent No.4.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that meanwhile the deposits of other creditors were released, however, the deposits made by the petitioners were not released. The petitioners make a limited prayer that let the respondents No.1&4 take a decision on the claim application of the petitioners seeking for release of the amount lying deposited with the respondent No.3.

3. The limited request made by the petitioners is not opposed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General.

4. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 & 4 are directed to take a decision on the application which the petitioners have filed seeking for release of the amount which is lying with the respondent No.3 which was deposited by the petitioners under different schemes and heads. It is expected that the authorities would take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order purely in accordance with rules and guidelines governing the field.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai