# Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Karauta, Gorakhpur v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 294
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20203 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/matsya-jivi-sahkari-samiti-ltd-karauta-gorakhpur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46153
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, S.
70 - U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules,
1968, Rule 444-C (2) - Election dispute -
Reference of the election dispute to the
Registrar - on the grounds specified under
clause (a) & clause (b) under sub-rule (1)
of Rule 444-C - by the aggrieved party
within forty-five days of the declaration of
the result - No court have jurisdiction to
entertain any suit or other proceeding in
respect of election dispute - Held - Court
declined
to
exercise
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution
-
in
view
of
complete
mechanism having been provided with
regard to settlement of disputes relating
to election in a co-operative society, in
terms of the statutory provisions under
the Act, 1965 and the Rules made
thereunder.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

## Text

294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission has been taken from the
Government has been obtained the transfer
would be bad in violation of law

10. We are, further, of the opinion that
the Corporation has committed no wrong is
not relying upon the document of transfer
of rights in respect of immovable property,
which has been made in violation of law.

11. Another aspect of the matter,
which does need consideration is with
regards to the provision of Section 142 of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The said
Section is in two parts which provides as
under:-

12. Sub-section (1) discloses that
bhumidhar with transferable rights will
have the right to exclusive possession over
the land and to use it for any purpose
whatsoever.

13. Sub-section (2) defines the
rights of bhumidhar with non transferable
rights. It is clarified that while he will
have right to exclusive possession of all
land of which he bhumidhar but the land
can be put to use it for the purposes
connected with Agriculture, Horticulture
and Animal Husbandry which included
the Pisciculture, Poultry Farming and
Social Forestry.

14. It is therefore, the consequences
under Section 165 because of the lease
being in violation of Section 157 of the
U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1950 would be that
the petitioner would have acquired the
right of bhumidhar with non transferable
rights therein, in that circumstances the
provision of Section 142 would come into
play and the land cannot be used except
for
the
purpose
of
Agriculture
Horticulture
and
Animal
Husbandry
including
with
Pisciculture,
Poultry
Farming and Social Forestry.

15. The Indian Oil Corporation
appears to be more than correct in
contending that such land cannot be
offered for the purposes of setting up of a
retail outlet.

16.

In
the
totality
of
the
circumstances on record, we see no
reason to interfere with the order of
Indian Oil Corporation, however, we
leave it open to the petitioner to
demonstrate before the Corporation that
because of the sale deed having been
executed in his favour his right over the
land, which was offered along with the
application have become better and it was
for the Corporation to examine and take
appropriate action in accordance with
law.

17. The writ petition is dismissed
subject to the observations made above.
----------
(2021)02ILR A294
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 20203 of 2020

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Karauta,
Gorakhpur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Kumar
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Karauta, Gorakhpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, S.
70 - U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules,
1968, Rule 444-C (2) - Election dispute -
Reference of the election dispute to the
Registrar - on the grounds specified under
clause (a) & clause (b) under sub-rule (1)
of Rule 444-C - by the aggrieved party
within forty-five days of the declaration of
the result - No court have jurisdiction to
entertain any suit or other proceeding in
respect of election dispute - Held - Court
declined
to
exercise
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution
-
in
view
of
complete
mechanism having been provided with
regard to settlement of disputes relating
to election in a co-operative society, in
terms of the statutory provisions under
the Act, 1965 and the Rules made
thereunder.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking a direction to decide the claim
of the petitioner with regard to election
proceedings of a co-operative society
namely, Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd.,
Village Karauta, Block Brahampur, District
Gorakhpur.

3. As per the averments made in the
writ petition, in particular, in paragraphs 9
and 10, the elections have been held and
declared on 22.11.2019 and the elected
office bearers have also taken charge but
the grievance of the petitioner with regard
to the elections, raised in his complaints,
has not been redressed.

4.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents has
drawn attention of this Court to the
provisions under Section 70 of the Uttar
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965,
and the proviso to sub-section (1) thereof
and also to Rule 444-C (2) of the Uttar
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules,
1968, to contend that once an election of a
co-operative society has been held, the
remedy available to the aggrieved party is
by seeking a reference of the dispute to the
Registrar.

5. To appreciate the aforesaid
contentions,
the
relevant
statutory
provisions may be adverted to.

6. Section 70 under Chapter IX of The
U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 reads
as under :-

"70. Disputes which may be
referred
to
arbitration.
-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, if any
dispute
relating
to
the
constitution,
management of the business of a cooperative society other than a dispute
regarding disciplinary action taken against
a paid servant of a society arises-

(a)
among
members,
past
members and persons claiming through
members, past members and deceased
members; or

(b) between a member, past
member or any person claiming through, a
member, past member or deceased member,
and
the
society,
its
Committee
of
Management or any officer, agent or
employee of the society, including any past
officer, agent or employee; or
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) between the society or its
committee and any past committee, any
officer, agent or employee or any past
officer, past agent or past employee or the
nominee, heir or legal representative of any
deceased
officer,
deceased
agent,
or
deceased employee of the society; or

(d)
between
a
co-operative
society and any other co-operative society
or societies:

such dispute shall be referred to
the Registrar for action in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and the rules and
no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain
any suit or other proceeding in respect of
any such dispute:

Provided that a dispute relating
to an election under the provisions of this
Act or rules made thereunder shall not
be referred to the Registrar until after
the declaration of the result of such
election.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section
(1), the following shall be deemed to be
included
in
dispute
relating
to
the
constitution, management or the business
of a co-operative society, namely -

(a) claims for amounts due when
a demand for payment is made and is either
refused or not complied with whether such
claims are admitted or not by the opposite
party;

(b) a claim by a surety against the
principal debtor where the society has
recovered from the surety any amount in
respect of any debt or demand due to it
from the principal debtor as a result of the
default of the principal debtor or whether
such debt or demand is admitted or not;

(c) a claim by a society for any
loss caused to it by a member, officer,
agent, or employee including past or
deceased
member,
officer,
agent,
or
employee,
whether
individually
or
collectively and whether such loss be
admitted or not; and

(d) all matters relating to the
objects of the society mentioned in the byelaws as also those relating to the election of
office-bearers.

(3) If any question arises whether
a dispute referred to the Registrar under
this section is a dispute relating to the
constitution, management or the business
of co-operative society the decision thereon
of the Registrar shall be final and shall not
be called in question in any Court."

7. Rule 444-C of the Uttar Pradesh
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 is being
reproduced hereinbelow :-

"444-C. (1) The election in a cooperative society shall not be called in
question either by arbitration or otherwise
except on the ground that--

(a) the election has not been a fair
election by reasons that corrupt practice,
bribery or undue influence has extensively
prevailed at the election, or

(b) the result of the election has
been materially affected--

(i) by improper acceptance or
rejection of any nomination, or

(ii) by improper reception, refusal
or rejection of voters, or

(iii) by gross failure to comply
with the provisions of the Act, the rules or
the bye-laws of the society.

Explanation.--For the purpose of
this rule corruption, bribery or undue
influence shall have the meaning assigned
to each under Section 123 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(2) A dispute relating to election
shall be referred by the aggrieved party
within forty-five days of the declaration of
the result."
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Karauta, Gorakhpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
297

8. The aforequoted provisions
indicate that the manner of settlement
of disputes is provided for under
Chapter IX of the Act, 1965.

9. Section 70 is in respect of
disputes which may be referred to
arbitration and in terms thereof, the
disputes specified under sub-section (1)
are to be referred to the Registrar for
action in accordance with the provisions
of the Act and the rules and no Court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any
suit or other proceedings in respect of
any such dispute.

10. In terms of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 70, a dispute
relating to
an election under the
provisions of the Act or the rules made
thereunder, shall not be referred to the
Registrar until after the declaration of
the result of such election.

11. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 444-C
provides that the election in a cooperative society shall not be called in
question
either
by
arbitration
or
otherwise
except
on
the
grounds
specified under clause (a) and clause
(b) under sub-rule (1).

12. In terms of sub-rule (2) a
dispute relating to an election shall be
referred by the aggrieved party within
forty-five days of the declaration of the
result.

13. In the case at hand, as per the
case set up by the petitioner, the
elections of the co-operative society in
question, have already been held and
the results thereof have also been
declared. In view of the aforesaid facts
and situation, any complaint, grievance
or dispute which is being sought to be
raised with regard to the elections, is
to be referred to the Registrar on an
appropriate
application
by
the
aggrieved party.

14. A conjoint reading of the
provisions contained under Section 70
of the Act, 1965 and Rule 444-C of the
Rules, 1968 leave no manner of doubt
that
a
complete
procedure
for
settlement of disputes and the manner
of reference of such disputes, including
a dispute relating to an election under
the provisions of the Act or the Rules
made thereunder, is provided for. Any
grievance,
complaint
or
dispute
relating to the election proceedings of
a co-operative society can be called in
question on the grounds specified
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 444-C by
applying for a reference by making an
appropriate application under Section
70 of the Act, 1965.

15. A complete mechanism with
regard
to
settlement
of
disputes
relating to election in a co-operative
society having been provided for in the
manner as aforestated, we are not
inclined to exercise our extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, in the facts of the present
case.

16. It would be open to the
petitioner to invoke the appropriate
remedy, provided in terms of the
statutory provisions under the Act,
1965 and the Rules made thereunder.

17. Subject to the aforesaid
observation, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
----------
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)02ILR A298
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 20423 of 2020

M/s S.K. Industries ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramendra Asthana, Sri Vijay Kumar
Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,
S. 30 - Settlement - arbitral tribunal to
encourage settlement of the dispute -
arbitral tribunal may use - mediation,
conciliation or other procedures, at
any
time
during
the
arbitral
proceedings -to encourage settlement
- Section 30 of the Act, 1996, is to be
availed during the pendency of the
arbitral proceedings. (Para 12, 13)

Agreement entered into between petitioner
&
State
for
milling
paddy-Recovery
certificate issued against petitioner-Clause
12 of the agreement contains arbitration
clause-Held- In the present case, the
dispute having not yet been referred for
arbitration & no arbitral proceedings being
pending - therefore question of settlement
of the dispute U/s 30 of the Act, 1996,
would not arise - Liberty granted to
petitioner to make application to refer the
dispute for arbitration as per terms of the
agreement (Para 8, 14, 16)

Writ Petition disposed off. (E-4)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Praksh Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed praying for the following reliefs :-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent nos. 1/2 to
decide arbitration claim (contained in
annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) within
a period of three months or within as short
a period as may be deemed to be necessary
under facts and circumstances of the case.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents and their subordinates etc.
not to take any coercive measure on the
basis
of
recovery
certificate
dated
19.09.2018 forming subject matter of
aforesaid arbitration proceedings (copy of
arbitration claim petition annexure no. 7 to
the writ petition)."

2. The principal grievance sought to
be raised is against a recovery certificate
dated 19.9.2018 for amount of Rs.
48,60,102/- issued against the petitioner in
accordance with Clause 19 of the Paddy
Purchase
Policy
2017-18
dated
31st
August, 2017.

3. The petitioner claims to have filed
an application seeking settlement of dispute
under Section 30 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 19961 as per clause 12 of
the CMR agreement. The petitioner also
claims to have filed an application for
staying the recovery proceedings during the
pendency of the settlement proceedings.

4. Contention of learned counsel for
the
petitioner
is
that
the
aforesaid
application for settlement under Section 30