AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Srivastava, J.—Heard the counsel for the Petitioner.
Perused the record:
The Petitioner has sought for the quashing of an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Respondent No. 2 dated 3-12-93 whereunder in the proceedings u/s 12-D of the Cooperative Societies Act, the registration of the Society for the period mentioned in the order was cancelled and as a consequence of the findings recorded under that order exercising the jurisdiction envisaged u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act as applicable to the State of U.P. It was held that the office bearers of the Committee of Management had ceased to be in the office to the effect from 25-7-90.
The Petitioner has further sought for the quashing of the notice dated 17-5-94 whereunder the Deputy*Registrar Cooperative Societies required the production of the relevant documents for determining the list of valid members of the Society so that the fresh election could be held pursuant to the order dated 3-12-93. The Petitioner has further prayed for the quashing of the order of the Respondent No. 1 whereunder the application of the Petitioner dated 22-5-94, a copy of which had been sent to the Respondent No. 1 was rejected indicating that order passed by Deputy Registrar, Agra could not be reviewed.
The order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 3-12-93 cancelling the registration exercising the jurisdiction u/s 12-D(1) of the Societies Registration Act as applicable to the State of U.P. is an appealable order. It may be noticed that the cancellation of the certificate of renewal of registration has the same effect as the cancellation of the registration as In both cases the Society is reduced to a mere association of persons which can not utilise any benefit consequent upon registration as provided for under the Societies Registration Act. It is the order leading to such an effect which is made appealable u/s 12-D(2) of the Act as applicable to the State of U.P. A statutory right of appeal against such an order stands provided u/s 12-D(2) of the Act.
The controversy raised by the Petitioner involves investigation into disputed question of facts as is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 3-12-93 which indicates that the matter had been seriously contested.
On the facts and circumstances as brought on the record, I am clearly of the view that the controversy raised by the Petitioner can be appropriately decided by the appellate authority in appeal.
In the circumstances/since the Petitioner has a speedy and efficacious statutory alternative remedy available to him for the redressed of his grievances it will not be proper to entertain this writ petition at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving It open to the Petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy