CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the state government to revive all dormant cooperative societies and ensure lawful functioning of the regulated market committees (RMCs).
The two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Parameswar Dash. The petitioner had urged the court to direct the state to invoke section 40 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 to revive societies that had been liquidated or winded up.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Biplab PB Bahali contended that section 40 of the Act casts a duty on the state government to promote the cooperative movement and take necessary steps for that purpose. He submitted that despite a representation made to the government highlighting the issue of dormant cooperative societies and RMCs, no decision had been taken. The state was represented by additional government advocate Debashis Tripathy.
After examining the statutory scheme, the bench observed that section 40 merely lays down the objective and obligation of the state to promote cooperative movement but does not confer any enforceable right on an individual. The bench noted that the Act provides a complete mechanism for regulation, supervision, winding up and revival of cooperative societies.
Referring to section 72 of the Act, the bench pointed out that the registrar is empowered to cancel registration or wind up a cooperative society when statutory conditions are fulfilled. Once such an order is passed under the Act, a PIL cannot be used to compel the state to act contrary to the statutory framework. The court reiterated that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing an authority to act “dehors the law or in contravention thereto”.
The judges further noted that the Act itself provides remedies. Sub-section (3) of section 72 empowers the registrar to cancel an order of winding up, while section 109 provides for an appeal against an order passed under section 72. In view of these provisions, the court held that seeking revival of all liquidated societies through a general PIL amounted to bypassing the remedies expressly provided by law.
Holding that directing the state government to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation would be an “idle formality”, the bench concluded that no case for issuance of a direction was made out. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.