Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Chandra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 01, 1998

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473981

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/473981
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;S.L. Saraf, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 01, 1998
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 11266 of 1998
Subject: Trusts and Societies

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Trusts and Societies - deletion of Proviso - Section 35(2) of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - effect of deletion of Proviso to Section 35(2) - no time prescribed for completion of enquiry after deletion - if no time prescribed reasonable time should be taken for completion. -

Key legal issue: Trusts and Societies
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226; Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 35(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chandra Pal Singh

Advocate Vineet Saran, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C. and ;H.R. Misra, ;V.C. Tripathi and ;Murlidhar, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226; Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 35(2)
Cases Referred: Avnish Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya.
Reported In: 1998(2)AWC1369; (1998)3UPLBEC2121

Excerpt

trusts and societies - deletion of proviso - section 35(2) of u.p. co-operative societies act, 1965 - effect of deletion of proviso to section 35(2) - no time prescribed for completion of enquiry after deletion - if no time prescribed reasonable time should be taken for completion. - .....addl. advocate genera! and sri h. r. misra for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and shri murlidhar and sri v. c. tripathi for respondent no. 3.2. the petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the -orders dated 26.7.97 and 20.1.98.3. the facts of this case are that the petitioner claimed to be the chairman of the committee of management of the u. p. co-operative federation which is a state level apex co-operative society registered under the u. p. cooperative societies act. 1965. the petitioner was suspended by order dated 26.7.97 against which he filed a writ petition no. 25346 of 1997, chandra pal singh and committee of management v. state of u. p. and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 6.8.97, copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition. subsequently it appears that the petitioner filed a representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order and that representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.1.98, hence this writ petition.4. a perusal of the order dated 6.8.97 of this court shows that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. it has been held by the supreme court in sarguja transport service 0. s. t. a. tribunal, air 1987 sc 88 and in avnish nagra v. navodaya vidyalaya. 1997 (2) scc 534 para 13. that if a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition then a second writ petition for the same relief is barred.5. sri vineet saran learned counsel for the petitioner states that the abovementioned rulings do not apply as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.1.98 which is the order rejecting the representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order. in our opinion, the order dated 20.1.98 has only affirmed the earlier suspension order dated 26.7.97 and hence the submission of sri vineet saran is not tenable, and this second petition is not maintainable.6. sri vineet saran then.....

Full Judgment

M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Vineet Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Advocate Genera! and Sri H. R. Misra for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Murlidhar and Sri V. C. Tripathi for respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the -orders dated 26.7.97 and 20.1.98.

3. The facts of this case are that the petitioner claimed to be the Chairman of the Committee of Management of the U. P. Co-operative Federation which is a State Level Apex Co-operative Society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. 1965. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 26.7.97 against which he filed a Writ Petition No. 25346 of 1997, Chandra Pal Singh and Committee of Management v. State of U. P. and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 6.8.97, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. Subsequently it appears that the petitioner filed a representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order and that representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.1.98, hence this writ petition.

4. A perusal of the order dated 6.8.97 of this Court shows that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service 0. S. T. A. Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88 and in Avnish Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya. 1997 (2) SCC 534 para 13. that if a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition then a second writ petition for the same relief is barred.

5. Sri Vineet Saran learned counsel for the petitioner states that the abovementioned rulings do not apply as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.1.98 which is the order rejecting the representation praying for withdrawal of the suspension order. In our opinion, the order dated 20.1.98 has only affirmed the earlier suspension order dated 26.7.97 and hence the submission of Sri Vineet Saran is not tenable, and this second petition is not maintainable.

6. Sri Vineet Saran then has sought to challenge the deletion of the second proviso to Section 35 (2) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act by Amending Act No. 1 of 1997. Prior to this amendment, this second proviso to Section 35 (2) stated that if proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 35 could not be completed within six months, then it will be deemed to have been dropped and the suspended Committee of Management shall be reinstated. Shri Vineet Saran challenged the deletion of the second proviso to Section 35 (2) on the ground that now there is no time limit for continuing the suspension and hence, there is arbitrariness. We cannot accept his contention because it is settled law that if no time is fixed for doing something. It is implicit that it shall be done within a reasonable time, vide Regional Provident Fund v. M/s. K. T. Rolling, AIR 1995 SC 943, para 4. Hence we uphold the constitutional validity of Amending Act No. I of 1997. Moreover, it is always open to a person to approach this Court for a direction that the proceeding be completed expedition sly. We have also been informed by learned Addl. Advocate General that nine members of the Committee of Management had approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 2805 of 1997, against the impugned suspension order, and this petition is still pending. In our opinion, this amounts to bench hopping which cannot be appreciated.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the enquiry against Committee of Management must be completed within three months' from today positively, and the petitioner and the other members of the Committee of Management shall cooperate with the enquiry and shall not seek adjournments. Photo copies of any documents required by the petitioner shall be supplied to him within 10 days of his demanding the same. The petitioner will be given opportunity of hearing in the enquiry.

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1998 Same Parties Chandra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Trusts and Societies Same Judge M. Katju and ;S.L. Saraf, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226; Uttar Pradesh Co...

Trusts and Societies