SARKARI KARAMCHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010137322023 2026:CGHC:44701
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
PRIYANKA
VERMA
Date:
2026.10.16
18:18:34
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PRIYANKA
VERMA
WPC No. 2098 of 2023
1 - Sarkari Karamchari Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Mopka,
Bilaspur, Reg. No. 3157, Through Its President Durgesh Kumar Gorakh
2 - Durgesh Kumar Gorakh S/o B.L Gorakh Aged About 65 Years R/o
Shivaji Chowk, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S/o B. Tiwari, Aged About 54 Years R/o
Mopka, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Vice- President Sarkari Grah Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Mopka, Bilaspur, Reg. No. 3157
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative
Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Composite Building,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Tahsildar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Hemvati Nandan Purena, Senior Cooperative Inspector, Deputy
Registrar Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate
For Intervener : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
15/10/2026
1. The petitioners, in this Writ Petition, have prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
allow the instant Writ Petition filed by the
Petitioners in the interest of Justice.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for entire record pertaining to the instant
case.
10.3 That, the writ certiorari may kindly be passed
quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-1).
10.4 That, the writ of mandamus against the
respondents may kindly passed and particularly
against the Respondent No.5, restraining them from
interfering with the affairs of the Society.
10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may pass any order in
the interest of justice in favor of the petitioners with
cost of the petition may also be granted to the
petitioner.”
2. At the outset, learned State counsel, referring to paragraphs 3 and 4 of
the return, submits that an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before
the Joint Registrar is available to the petitioner under Section 78 of the
Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The said paragraphs read
as under:
“ 3. It is respectfully submitted that it is appropriate
for the petitioner to approach the competent
authority for redressal of his grievance as per the

3
provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960 before the Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies and thereafter before the
Registrar and finally before the Chhattisgarh State
Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur and the petitioner is
having the statutory efficacious alternative remedy
available but the petitioner has preferred the
present petition without exhausting the said remedy
and therefore the petition of the petitioners deserves
to be dismissed.
4. It is respectfully submitted that every order
passed by the Deputy Registrar is appealable
before the Joint Registrar and thereafter before the
Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal. In the
instant case the petitioner is challenging the order
impugned passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies and it is appropriate for the
petitioner to approach the competent authority as
per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960 and therefore there is an
statutory efficacious alternative remedy is provided
under the statute. Therefore the present petition is
not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Transport & Dock Workers Union &
Others Vs. Mumbai Port Trust & Another (2011)2
SCC 575 para No. 14 held that writ petition filed by
the appellant should have been dismissed by the
High Court on the ground of existence of
alternative remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act.
It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a
discretionary jurisdiction and the discretion should
not be ordinarily be exercised if there is an
alternative remedy available to the appellant. In

4
this case there was a clear alternative remedy
available to the appellant by raising an Industrial
Dispute and hence even failed to understand why
the High Court entertained the writ petition. It
seems to as that some High Courts by adopting an
over liberal approach are unnecessarily aiding to
their load of areas instead of observing judicial
discipline in following settled principle.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not oppose the submission made
by learned State counsel.
4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and the specific objection raised by the State in paragraph 4 of the
return regarding the availability of an alternative remedy of filing an
appeal before the Joint Registrar under Section 78 of the Chhattisgarh
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner may avail the said remedy in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty in
favour of the petitioners to approach the concerned appellate authority
by filing an appeal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Priyanka