# Chandra Prakash Agrawal v. Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 577
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-04-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16311 of 2011
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-prakash-agrawal-v-urban-cooperative-bank-ltd-and-others-41924
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-caste
certificate-cancellation by the authority
who had granted-no allegation of fraud
or concealment-held-authority granting
the
certificate
no
doubt
possess

## Text

2 All] Chandra Prakash Agrawal V. Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others
577

(iii) any other corporation owned or
controlled by the State

Government (including any company
as defined in Section 3 of the Companies
Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty per
cent of paid up share capital is held by the
State Government) but does not include-

(1) a person in the pay or service of
any other company ; or

(2) a member of the All India Services
or other Central Services."

5. It talks of a public servant in the
service or pay of the State Government.
The salary paid to a teacher of an aided
institution is actually salary paid by the
College itself pursuant to the aid received
from State Government. By virtue of the
provision of Payment of Salary Act, the
responsibility to ensure salary to teaching
staff is on the Government for which
tuition fee to the extent provided in the Act
is deposited by the College in the State
Exchequer. The employer of the teacher is
Committee of Management of the School
and salary is paid to the teacher by the
College and not by Government. The
revisional
Court
has
completely
misdirected itself in holding the petitioner
a 'public servant'. Therefore the impugned
order cannot sustain.

6. The writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 15th November,
2003 passed by Addl. District Judge,
Mathura (Annexure 9 to the writ petition)
is set set aside.

7. However since the suit was filed in
1995, it needs be decided expeditiously. I
order accordingly.

8. At this stage learned Standing
Counsel stated that in the matter of
educational institutions, even otherwise a
civil suit is barred by the provisions of
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and
other relevant statutes.

Since this aspect of the matter has not
been considered and decided by the Court
below, this Court is not expressing any
opinion on the issue and leave it open to
the
trial
Court
to
consider
the
maintainability of the suit in the light of the
provisions of Intermediate Education Act,
1921 and such other provision, as may be
referred to by the parties concerned before
it. This judgment shall not be construed to
expressing any opinion on this aspect of
the matter.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,J.
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16311 of 2011

Chandra Prakash Agrawal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Urban
Cooperative
Bank
Ltd.
and
others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Saxena

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Alternative Remedy-in default in payment
of

instalments-recovery
proceeding
initiated as per award given by arbitrator
under Rule 229-(1)(c) of U.P. Cooperative
Societies rules 1968-appellable under
Section 98 (h) of the Act-petition can not
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
be
entertained-without
awaiting
alternative statutory remedy.

Held: Para 6

In view of the submission made by Sri
Sujit Kumar Rai , learned counsel for the
Respondent no.1, Sri Pradeep Saxena,
learned counsel for the petitioner states
that
the
petitioner
will
pursue
the
alternative remedy available to him under
the U.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1965
and, therefore, the present writ petition
may be dismissed as withdrawn.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. P. Mehrotra,J. )

1. The present writ petition has been
filed, interalia, praying for directing the
Tehsil authorities not to execute the
citation/ notice dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure -
1 to the writ petition ).

2. By order dated 17.3.2011, Sri Sujit
Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 was granted time to obtain
instructions in the matter.

3. Sri Sujit Kumar Rai, on the basis
of the instructions received by him, states
that the petitioner had taken loan from the
respondent no. 1. As the petitioner
committed default in payment of loan the
respondent no.1 referred the matter for
arbitration under the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 read with Rule-229 (1)
(c) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1968. The arbitrator gave an award
dated 16.8.2010.

4. Pursuant to the said award,
recovery proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner.

5. Sri Sujit Kumar Rai further states
that the petitioner has got an alternative
remedy of filing appeal under Sections
98(1) (h) of the U.P.Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965.

6. In view of the submission made by
Sri Sujit Kumar Rai , learned counsel for
the Respondent no.1, Sri Pradeep Saxena,
learned counsel for the petitioner states
that
the
petitioner
will
pursue
the
alternative remedy available to him under
the U.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1965
and, therefore, the present writ petition
may be dismissed as withdrawn.

7. In view of the statement made by
Sri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for
the petitioner, the present writ petition is
dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice
to the right of the petitioner to pursue the
alternative remedy as may be available to
the petitioner under law, if the petitioner is
so advised.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16921 of 2011

Om Prakash

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastas

Counsel for the Respondent :
C.S.C.
Sri V.B. Maurya

Constitution of India-Article 226-caste
certificate-cancellation by the authority
who had granted-no allegation of fraud
or concealment-held-authority granting
the
certificate
no
doubt
possess