High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 08 UK CK 0016

Seema Rehman vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 1 August 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ · Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 461 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 300 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order/letter no. 1889/7/2021 dated 13.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3, namely Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. The petitioner also seeks a direction quashing a part of the order dated 28.06.2021, whereby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies/respondent no.1 directed respondent no.3 to once again consider the petitioner’s representation /resignation. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service, and to pay her back wages alongwith other benefits including consequential seniority.

2.

The order/letter No.1889/7/2021 dated 13.07.2021 is, in fact, the Resolution passed by the respondent no.3-Bank in a meeting of its Board of Directors.

3.

Respondent no.3 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court, as already held by a Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties in Writ Petition (S/B) No.510 of 2016 decided on 08.05.2019. Thus, the primary relief, sought by the petitioner in the present petition, cannot be granted, as no writ would lie against respondent no.3. The petitioner accepted the order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and submitted herself to the re-determination of the issue whether her resignation, should or should not, be accepted by the Board of Directors of respondent no.3-Co-operative Bank.

4.

We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition in respect of the second relief sought in the writ petition. We therefore, dismiss this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy against respondent no.3 in other competent proceedings, as may be available to her in law.

5.

We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the petitioner’s claim in the present petition.

6.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.