Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

AEA/23/32

INDORE CLOTH MARKET HOUSING SOCIETY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MADHU JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

PARAG KALE

22 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

AEA NO. 32 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 11.09.2023 passed in Execution Case No. 20/2016 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

INDORE CLOTH MARKET MADHYAMVARGIYA

GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT

THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR SUNIL RAGHUVANSHI,

S/O SHRI SUMER SINGH RAGHUVANSHI,

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSION, CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES, SHRAM SHIVIR, JAIL ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                                       … APPELLANT.

 

               Versus

 

MADHU JAIN,

W/O SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN,

R/O CHHAJED BHAWAN, SAIR CHABUTRA,

RATLAM (M.P.)                                                                                                             …. RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Sharad Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Respondent is present in person.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On  22.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                   This is an appeal by the opposite party/appellant against the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission) in Execution Case No.20/2016 whereby the arrest warrant has been issued against the Administrator Sunil Raghuvanshi.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant for receiving a plot admeasuring 30x50 in the proposed scheme of the

-2-

opposite party became member of the society after depositing Rs.20,550/-Thereafter she had deposited Rs.4,000/- on 23.12.1993, Rs.4,000/- on 17.01.1997, Rs.6,000/- on 19.09.1997, Rs.10,000/- on 20.01.1998 and Rs.10,000/- on 29.05.1998. Rs.13,000/- remained to be paid. It is alleged that despite deposit of amount, the opposite party society neither allotted the plot nor executed registered sale deed in her favour.  The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the society filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party-society in their reply to the complaint before the District Commission admitting the fact of deposition of Rs.54,550/- with the society denied the other allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant was informed to deposit the balance amount but she failed to deposit the same. It is submitted that the complainant was informed that as soon as the society will get the land from the Nav Bharat Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha, the complainant will be allotted a plot. Since the opposite party society did not receive the land from the Nav Bharat Society, therefore, the plot was not allotted to the complainant. As per agreement executed between the Nav Bharat Society and the opposite party-society, whenever the opposite party-society will receive the plots from Nav Bharat Society, the allotment of plot and registered sale deed will be executed in her favour.  

-3-

4.                The District Commission vide order dated 05.12.2015 in C.C.No.378/2010 allowing the complaint directed the opposite party-society that on availability of plot admeasuring 30x50=1500 sq.ft in Sukhniwas Road, after getting the balance amount from the complainant execute registered sale-deed in her favour and give possession of the plot. It is further directed that if the plot is not available, the society shall pay the cost of the plot as per Collector guidelines for that particular area. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.  

5.                The complainant filed an execution case no.20/2016 for compliance of the order dated 05.12.2015 wherein the District Commission vide impugned order dated 11.09.2023 issued arrest warrant against the Administrator appointed in the society.

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-society argued that in the execution case filed before the District Commission the earlier Administrator already stated the fact that the land of the society had already been sold by the Directors of the society. At present, there is no land with the society. The case regarding sale of that land is already subjudice before the Civil Court. Till 22.11.2021 only Rs.47,852/- are there in the account of the society. The society had already deposited Rs.48,000/- in the account of the District Commission. He argued that on

-4-

11.09.2023 though counsel for the opposite party/appellant appeared despite that the District Commission unilaterally ordered for issuance of arrest warrant against the Administrator Sunil Raghuvanshi. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside.        

8.                Complainant who appeared in person supporting the impugned order submitted that when the opposite party-society failed to comply with the final order dated 05.12.2015 in CC No.378/2010, the District Commission rightly issued the arrest warrant against the Administrator of the opposite party society.

7.                We have examined the entire material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant and respondent who appeared in person before us. Having gone through the record, we find that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 53(12) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 appointed Shri Sunil Raghuvanshi, Senior Co-operative Inspector as Administrator of Indore Cloth Market Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore. The Administrator being a government official and a representative of Registrar, Co-operative Societies is performing his duties. There is no liability of the Administrator in his personal capacity.

8.                We find that the land of the society had already been sold by the directors of the company and there is no land with the society. The

-5-

dispute with regard to sale of the land is pending before the Civil Court and the complainant is also a party to that case. The society being headed by the Administrator had already deposited the amount remained balance with the society in the account of the District Commission.

9.                It is also pertinent to mention here that on 11.09.2023, on behalf of opposite party-society counsel Shri Jugal Patidar appeared despite that the District Commission issued arrest warrant against the Administrator Sunil Raghuvanshi without assigning any reason. In our considered view when the opposite party was represented by their counsel, order regarding issuance of warrant against the Administrator of the society is not sustainable. Thus, we set-aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2023 with regard to issuance of arrest warrant against the Administrator Sunil Raghuvanshi.

10.              In view of the above, we remand the case to the District Commission with direction to proceed further in accordance with law.

11.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 25.06.2024.

11.              In the result, this appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.       

     

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                  Member