Rajendra Narayan Agrawal v. Union Of India
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 47 of 2021
1. Rajendra Narayan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jiwrakhan Lal Agrawal Aged About 71 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Nirmala Agrawal W/o Shri Rajendra Narayan Agrawal Aged About 65 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, P.S Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Vinay Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Rajendra Narayan Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Smt. Neelu Agrawal W/o Shri Vikash Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Shiva Electronic, Amin Para, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- 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 Petitioner :
Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For respondent No. 1 :
Mrs. Purnima Singh on behalf of Mr.
Ramakant Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 13.01.2021
1. Considering the nature of default pointed out by the Registry, it is ignored
and the case is heard finally.
2. The limited grievance that the petitioners have raised in this writ petition 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 has been closed and at the instance of respondent No.1 a Liquidator was also appointed i.e. respondent No.4.
3. Learned 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.
4. The limited request made by the petitioners is not opposed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General.
5. 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.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. SD/-/- sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Vishakha