Malti Devi Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. ordernarendra nath tiwari, j.1. this civil revision application is against the order dated 12-2-2004 passed by the additional judicial commissioner, ranchi in misc. case no. 2 of 2002 whereby the court below has allowed the said miscellaneous case and restored the title appeal no. 30 of 1993 to its original file. notice was issued to the opposite parties. mr. r. r. tiwari appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.2. heard both the parties.3. from perusal of the order dated 12-2-2004, it is evident that the appellant was not present on the day, the impugned order was passed. only the respondents were present. they had objected to the petition filed by the appellant in the said misc. case no. 2 of 2002. in spite of the same the learned court below took up the matter and even without hearing the parties, passed the impugned order allowing the miscellaneous case filed by the appellants in the lower appellate court.4. although the court has discretion to allow the application for restoration in a case in which sufficient causes are explained, yet the way it has been done in the instant case is not permissible in law. the court below has not discussed the evidence or the affidavit on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. the order is not supported by any speaking reason and the same is cryptic and mechanical. in that view the impugned order dated 12-2-2004 cannot sustain in law and the same is hereby set aside. the case is remitted back to the learned court below for disposing of the said misc. case no. 2 of 2002 by speaking order and in accordance with law.5. this civil revision application is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations.