# Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 890
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-07
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hindustan-petroleum-corp-ltd-v-u-o-i-ors-50036
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- Writ - Maintainability
-Alternative
remedy
-
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Ss. 14 and 17 -
Amendment inserting Clause (4-A) in S. 17
- Held, the High Court would not be
justified in entertaining a writ petition
directly under Article 226 challenging an
order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as
the remedy is u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 - Petitioner may raise all relevant
issues before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
u/s 17. (Para 8 and 9)
4 All. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
891
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. In case, for any reason if
respondent No. 3-Dr. Dinesh Agarwal fails
to visit the child on Sunday, after informing
the next immediate day after Sunday within
one or two days to the petitioner's next
friend/ mother Smt. Deepti Goel, may visit
the child on that altered day.

5. Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, father of
the detenue- Master Devansh Agarwal, has
right to contact with his son telephonically
either audio or video mode. For the purpose
of telephonic conversation, Smt Deepti
Goyal, the mother will facilitate the child
with telephone/mobile phone. It may be
appropriate for both of them i.e. father and
mother of the detenue-Master Devansh to
fix a time for telephonic conversations
between the children and his father not less
than ten minutes.

6. If the father of the child wants
to give any gift on account of love and
affection of his child or do anything for
well- being of child at house/shopping
mall/park then mother of child or any
family members of Smt. Deepti Goyal will
not make any objection. However, father
shall keep in mind that such thing will be
given, which are for use and safety of the
children.

7. Reciprocally, the petitioner's
next friend, mother of the child Master
Devansh shall ensure to remain present at
the House No. B-47, Sector-H, Aliganj,
District Lucknow for the purpose of
complying with the direction as to the
visitation right given to the father or on any
other date as stipulated herein-above. The
mother shall not leave or change the house
of her abode with child without seeking
prior
permission
of
the
Court
and
informing to the father of the child,
respondent no. 3. She will not leave with
child Master Devansh the jurisdiction of
the Court without prior permission as
directed herein-above.

25. With these observations/directions
C.M. Application No. 1A/14/2022, C.M.
Application
No.
25/2022
and
C.M.
Application
No.15/2022
are
finally
disposed off.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 890
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No .2119 of 2023

Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Aprajita Bansal, Sri Karan Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Alok Saxena, Sri Ashwani
Kumar Singh, C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- Writ - Maintainability
-Alternative
remedy
-
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Ss. 14 and 17 -
Amendment inserting Clause (4-A) in S. 17
- Held, the High Court would not be
justified in entertaining a writ petition
directly under Article 226 challenging an
order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as
the remedy is u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 - Petitioner may raise all relevant
issues before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
u/s 17. (Para 8 and 9)
4 All. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
891
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1.
Harshad
Govardhan
Sondagar
Vs
International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. &
ors.; (2014) 6 SCC 1
2. Bajranj Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs Central
Bank of India & anr.; (2019) 9 SCC 94
3. United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tandon &
ors.; (2010) 8 SCC 110
4. Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & ors. Vs St. of
Mah. & ors.; (2011) 2 SCC 782
5. Special Leave petition Nos. 13241-13242 of
2019; Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Dilip
Bhosale
6. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya
Mandir & ors.; (2022) 5 SCC 345
7. Special Leave Petition No. 16013 of 2022;
Balakrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr. LRS & anr. Vs
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & ors. decided on
26.09.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State and learned Alok Saxena, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 4.

2. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner-
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. has challenged an order
dated 09.08.2021 passed by the District
Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No. 00745 of
2021; State Bank of India Vs. M/s Shiv
Geet Sales Pvt. Ltd. under Section 14 of
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act, 2002').

3. The contention of the petitioner's
counsel in nutshell was that the petitioner
was the lessee of the secured asset and that
a lease was executed by the borrower in
favour of the petitioner much prior to
mortgage of the said property by him with
the opposite party No. 4- Bank. The lease
being registered and the same not having
been determined as per the provisions of
Section 111 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, the Bank erred in proceeding
under Section under Section 13 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the said
asset and the District Magistrate also erred
in passing an order under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 without hearing the
petitioner. The submission is that this
action is in gross violation of the law
declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the Case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar
Vs. International Assets Reconstruction
Company Limited and Ors. reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 1 and subsequent decision in
the case of Bajranj Shyamsunder Agarwal
Vs. Central Bank of India and Another
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 94.

4. Learned counsel for the Bank on
the other hand submitted that the petitioner
has a remedy under Sub-section (1) and
(4A) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002, therefore, in view of catena of
decisions on the subject right from the case
of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati
Tandon and Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC
110; Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and
Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782, a recent
decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in SLP Nos. 13241-13242 of 2019;
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Dilip
Bhosale and in the case of Phoenix Arc
Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya
Mandir and Ors. reported in (2022) 5 SCC
345, this writ petition is not maintainable.

5. This apart, he submitted that the
lease in question has been terminated vide
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice
dated
03.06.2021,
which,
the
petitioner itself has annexed as Annexure
No. 3 to the writ petition, according to
which, three months notice was given to
the petitioner w.e.f. 07.06.2021 and after
expiry of which, the lease dated 13.10.2003
shall stand determined/terminated and the
petitioner was further asked to deposit lease
rent of three months as agreed in terms of
the lease dated 13.10.2003. Based on it, he
submitted that period of notice expired on
06.09.2021 on which date the lease stood
determined. In response, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that this
determination of lease, as alleged, if at all,
took place after passing of the impugned
order on 09.08.2021, therefore, this is not a
material
fact
for
the
purposes
of
adjudicating the validity of the impugned
action of the District Magistrate under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
She also contended that the petitioner is in
possession of the land in question,
therefore, it is gravely prejudiced by the
impugned order. She also submitted that no
doubt the Debt Recovery Tribunal has the
power to restore possession in proceedings
under Section 17(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
2002, but, it would be highly unreasonable
to first dispossess lessee of the land in
question
and
thereafter
to
order
repossession thereof. She also submitted
that in view of the apparent facts of the
case remedy under Section 17(1) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not available to
the petitioner. In this regard she relies upon
the decisions referred by her earlier.

6. At this stage learned counsel for the
Bank submitted that the secured asset
comprises of property measuring 8450
square meter, whereas, the petitioner is in
possession of only 1600 square meter of
land and in any case the lease having been
determined the petitioner does not have any
case and the decision relied upon Harshad
Govardhan Sondagar's case (supra) does
not help its cause. He reiterated that all
these issues can be seen by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI
Act, 2002.

7. The decision in the case of
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra)
was rendered prior to amendment of
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
therefore, the proposition laid down therein
that so far as a lessee asserting leasehold
rights is concerned, there is no remedy
under Section 17(1) of the of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the remedy lies
only before the High Court under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India, does
not apply to cases where the cause of action
has arisen after insertion of Sub-section
(4A) in Section 17 of the of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002. By insertion of Section (4A) any
person
who
claims
any
tenancy
or
leasehold rights upon the secured asset can
maintain an application under sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 and the Debt Recovery Tribunal has
been vested with power and jurisdiction to
examine whether lease or tenancy - (a) has
expired or stood determined; or (b) is
contrary to Section 65A of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882; (c) is contrary to terms
of mortgage; or (d) is created after the
issuance of notice of default and demand
by the Bank under sub-section (2) of
Section 13 of the Act and Debt Recovery
Tribunal on being satisfied that tenancy
right or leasehold rights claimed in secured
asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or subclause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause
(d)
referred
hereinabove,
then,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, it may pass such order as it
deems fit in accordance with the provisions
4 All. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
893
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This
amendment was made by the Act 44 of
2016 vide Notification dated 01.09.2016
and is effective from the said date.

8. Likewise, Bajranj Shyamsunder
Agarwal's case (supra) is also a case where
cause of action had arisen prior to insertion
of Sub-section (4A) in Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, in view
of the above discussions, it can not be said
that the petitioner does not have a remedy
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002. The legal position is very well settled
by a catena of decisions of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court that in such matters,
considering
the
object
behind
the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, the High Court
would not be justified in entertaining a writ
petition directly under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging an order
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 as the remedy is under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002. We see no
reason to entertain this writ petition at this
stage under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

9. As far as the contention of learned
counsel for petitioner that the petitioner
was not heard, we do not wish to express
any opinion on this score also, as, we are
not entering into the merits of the issues
involved, but, suffice it is say that the
proceedings under Sections 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 are non adjudicatory
which can be challenged under Section 17
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the
petitioner may raise all relevant issues
including the aforesaid, before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002. We may in this
context refer to a recent decision rendered
by
Hon'ble
the
Supreme
Court
on
26.09.2022 in Special Leave Petition No.
16013 of 2022; Balakrishna Rama Tarle
Dead Thr. LRS and Anr. Vs. Phoenix
ARC Private Limited and Ors. wherein
after considering the provisions of Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 it has been
held as under:-

"On a fair reading of Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act, it appears that for
taking possession of the secured assets in
terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI
Act, the secured creditor is obliged to
approach the District Magistrate/Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate by way of a
written application requesting for taking
possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto and for being
forwarded to it (secured creditor) for
further action.

The statutory obligation enjoined
upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move
into action after receipt of a written
application under Section 14(1) of the
SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor
for that purpose. As soon as such an
application is received, the CMM/DM is
expected to pass an order after verification
of compliance of all formalities by the
secured creditor referred to in the proviso
in Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and
after being satisfied in that regard, to take
possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto and to forward
the same to the secured creditor at the
earliest opportunity. As observed and held
by this Court in the case of NKGSB
Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Subir
Chakravarty & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
1637/2022) decided on 25.02.2022, the
aforesaid act is a ministerial act. It cannot
brook delay. Time is of the essence and this
is the spirit of the special enactment. In the
recent decision in the case of M/s R.D. Jain
and Co. Vs. Capital First Ltd. & Ors. (Civil
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal
No.
175/2022)
decided
on
27.07.2022, this Court had an occasion to
consider the powers exercisable by District
Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
After considering the object and purpose of
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the
Scheme of the Act under Section 14, it is
observed and held in paragraphs 7 to 9 as
under:-

"7. Now so far as the powers
exercisable by DM and CMM under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are
concerned,
statement
of
objects
and
reasons for which SARFAESI Act has been
enacted reads as under:-

"STATEMENT
OF
OBJECTS
AND REASONS

The financial sector has been one
of the key drivers in India's efforts to
achieve success in rapidly developing its
economy. While the banking industry in
India is progressively complying with the
international
prudential
norms
and
accounting practices there are certain
areas in which the banking and financial
sector do not have a level playing field as
compared to other participants in the
financial markets in the world. There is no
legal
provision
for
facilitating
securitisation of financial assets of banks
and financial institutions. Further, unlike
international
banks,
the
banks
and
financial institutions in India do not have
power to take possession of securities and
sell them. Our existing legal framework
relating to commercial transactions has not
kept pace with the changing commercial
practices and financial sector reforms. This
has resulted in slow pace of recovery of
defaulting loans and mounting levels of
nonperforming
assets
of
banks
and
financial
institutions.
Narasimham
Committee I and II and Andhyarujina
Committee constituted by the Central
Government for the purpose of examining
banking sector reforms have considered the
need for changes in the legal system in
respect of these areas. These Committees,
inter alia, have suggested enactment of a
new legislation for securitisation and
empowering
banks
and
financial
institutions to take possession of the
securities and to sell them without the
intervention of the court. Acting on these
suggestions,
the
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement
of
Security
Interest
Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated on the
21st June, 2002 to regulate securitisation
and reconstruction of financial assets and
enforcement of security interest and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. The provisions of the Ordinance
would
enable
banks
and
financial
institutions to realise long-term assets,
manage problem of liquidity, asset liability
mismatches and improve recovery by
exercising powers to take possession of
securities,
sell
them
and
reduce
nonperforming
assets
by
adopting
measures for recovery or reconstruction."

Thus, the underlying purpose of
the SARFAESI Act is to empower the
financial institutions in India to have
similar powers as enjoyed by their
counterparts, namely, international banks
in other countries. One such feature is to
empower the financial institutions to take
possession of securities and sell them. The
same has been translated into provisions
falling under Chapter III of the SARFAESI
Act. Section 13 deals with enforcement of
security interest. Sub-Section (4) thereof
envisages that in the event a default is
committed by the borrower in discharging
4 All. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
895
his liability in full within the period
specified in subsection (2), the secured
creditor may take recourse to one or more
of the measures provided in subsection (4).
One of the measures is to take possession
of the secured assets of the borrower
including the right to transfer by way of
lease, assignment or sale for realising the
secured asset. That, they could do through
their "authorised officer" as defined in Rule
2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002.

7.1 After taking over possession
of the secured assets, further steps to lease,
assign or sale the same could also be taken
by the secured creditor. However, Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act predicates that if
the secured creditor intends to take
possession of the secured assets, must
approach the CMM/DM by way of an
application in writing, and on receipt of
such request, the CMM/DM must move into
action in right earnest. After passing an
order thereon, he/she (CMM/DM) must
proceed to take possession of the secured
assets and documents relating thereto for
being forwarded to the secured creditor in
terms of Section 14(1) read with Section
14(2) of the SARFAESI Act. As noted
earlier, Section 14(2) is an enabling
provision and permits the CMM/DM to
take such steps and use force, as may, in
his opinion, be necessary.

7.2 At this stage, it is required to
be noted that along with insertion of subsection (1A), a proviso has also been
inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act whereby the secured
creditor is now required to comply certain
conditions and to disclose that by way of an
application accompanied by affidavit duly
affirmed by its authorised officer in that
regard. Sub-Section (1A) is in the nature of
an explanatory provision and it merely
restates the implicit power of the CMM/DM
in
taking
services
of
any
officer
subordinate to him. As observed and held
by this Court in the case of NKGSB
Cooperative
Bank
Ltd.
(supra),
the
insertion of sub-section (1A) is not to invest
a new power for the first time in the
CMM/DM as such.

8. Thus, considering the scheme
of the SARFAESI Act, it is explicit and
crystal clear that possession of the secured
assets can be taken by the secured creditor
before confirmation of sale of the secured
assets as well as post-confirmation of sale.
For taking possession of the secured assets,
it could be done by the "authorised officer"
of the Bank as noted in Rule 8 of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002.

8.1 However, for taking physical
possession of the secured assets in terms of
Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the
secured creditor is obliged to approach the
CMM/DM by way of a written application
requesting for taking possession of the
secured assets and documents relating
thereto and for being forwarded to it
(secured creditor) for further action. The
statutory obligation enjoined upon the
CMM/DM is to immediately move into
action after receipt of a written application
under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act
from the secured creditor for that purpose.
As soon as such an application is received,
the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order
after verification of compliance of all
formalities by the secured creditor referred
to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the
SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in
that regard, to take possession of the
secured assets and documents relating
thereto and to forward the same to the
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
secured creditor at the earliest opportunity.
As mandated by Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act
within the stipulated time limit and pass a
suitable order for the purpose of taking
possession of the secured assets within a
period of 30 days from the date of
application which can be extended for such
further period but not exceeding in the
aggregate, sixty days. Thus, the powers
exercised by the CMM/DM is a ministerial
act. He cannot brook delay. Time is of the
essence. This is the spirit of the special
enactment. As observed and held by this
Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative
Bank Ltd. (supra), the step taken by the
CMM/DM while taking possession of the
secured assets and documents relating
thereto is a ministerial step. It could be
taken by the CMM/DM himself/herself or
through any officer subordinate to him/her,
including the advocate commissioner who
is considered as an officer of his/her court.
Section 14 does not oblige the CMM/DM to
go personally and take possession of the
secured assets and documents relating
thereto. Thus, we reiterate that the step to
be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step.
While disposing of the application under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no
element of quasi-judicial function or
application of mind would require. The
Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide
the correctness of the information given in
the
application
and
nothing
more.
Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an
adjudicatory process qua points raised by
the borrower against the secured creditor
taking possession of secured assets.

9. Thus, in view of the scheme of
the SARFAESI Act, more particularly,
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the
nature of the powers to be exercised by
learned
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate/learned District Magistrate,
the High Court in the impugned judgment
and order has rightly observed and held
that the power vested in the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate/learned District
Magistrate is not by way of persona
designata."

10. It thereafter went on to observe
as under:-

"Thus, the powers exercisable by
CMM/DM under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and
Section
14
does
not
involve
any
adjudicatory process qua points raised by
the borrowers against the secured creditor
taking possession of the secured assets. In
that view of the matter once all the
requirements under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied
by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast
upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured
creditor in obtaining the possession as
well as the documents related to the
secured assets even with the help of any
officer subordinate to him and/or with the
help of an advocate appointed as Advocate
Commissioner.
At
that
stage,
the
CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate
the dispute between the borrower and the
secured creditor and/or between any other
third party and the secured creditor with
respect to the secured assets and the
aggrieved party to be relegated to raise
objections in the proceedings under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before
Debts Recovery

11. In view of the above discussion,
leaving it open for the petitioner to avail
the said remedy, we dismiss this writ
petition as not maintainable.
----------
4 All. C/M Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Ltd. Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
897
(2023) 4 ILRA 897
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No .2282 of 2023

C/M Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Ltd.
Varanasi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Rakesh
Kumar Chaudhary

A. UP Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 -
Sections
29
(4-B)
&
35
-
UP
St.
Cooperative Societies Election Rules, 2014
- R. 8 - Proviso & R. 12 - Five years term
of Committee of Management expired -
An interim management committee was
constituted u/s 29(4-B) - An employee of
Housing Dept. was made member -
Validity challenged - Whether the order
can be treated as an order passed u/s 35
providing suspension of Committee -
Held, there is no prohibition in appointing
an employee as part of the interim
managing committee u/s 29(4-B) - Held
further, order cannot be treated as one
passed u/s 35 because the latter provision
speaks of supersession or suspension of
committee of management, whereas there
is
no
question
of
supersession
or
suspension of committee of management
after the term has already expired - It is
an order passed u/s 29(4-B) - High Court
issued
direction
for
conducting
the
election. (Para 5, 6, 11, 14 and 17)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. This petition has been filed by
Committee of Management Gandhi Grah
Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. seeking the
following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 01.02.2023, passed
by opposite party number 4, contained as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition;

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the opposite party number 2 to hold the
election of the Committee of Management
of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Limited, Varanasi forthwith.

iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite party number 3
to allow the petitioner Committee of
Management to manage affairs of the
Society till the elections are held."

2. It is not in dispute that term of the
Committee of Management has expired
and elections to the same could not be
held prior to expiry of the said term. In
these circumstances, Additional Registrar
Co-operative Society pertaining to the
Cooperative Housing Society has issued
the
impugned
order
on
01.02.2023
constituting
an
interim
management
committee
u/s
29(4-B)
of
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965
comprising of five members including
Cooperative Officer (Housing), Varanasi
who happens to be an employee of the
Housing Department of the Government.