The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that when identical notices issued to co-operative society employees have been set aside by the Registrar on merits, dismissing a similar grievance solely on grounds of limitation violates the principle of equal treatment under law. This order provides a clear pathway for aggrieved employees to seek redressal through the statutory forum under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Teerath Prasad Dwivedi, challenges a notice dated 30-11-2015 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Sidhi, which impugned his service conditions or employment status. The petitioner contends that the notice was issued without due process and that he had already submitted a detailed reply to it, documented as Annexure-P/4.
Key Facts
- The notice dated 30-11-2015 forms the basis of the petitioner’s grievance.
- The petitioner filed a written reply to the notice on or before the stipulated date, as evidenced by Annexure-P/4.
- Multiple other employees of co-operative banks faced identical notices issued under the same administrative framework.
- These similarly situated employees challenged the notices before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
- The Registrar, in those cases, set aside the identical notices, holding them legally unsustainable.
Procedural History
- 30-11-2015: Notice impugned in the present petition issued by the bank.
- Prior to 2026: Petitioner submitted reply (Annexure-P/4) to the notice.
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 11402 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
- 02-04-2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Maninder S. Bhatti.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the notice is legally invalid and that the Registrar has already set aside identical notices in other cases. Therefore, the petitioner’s grievance must be adjudicated on merits, not dismissed on technical grounds of limitation.
Respondent: Did not appear or file a written submission. The Court proceeded on the basis of the petitioner’s pleadings and the Registrar’s prior orders in similar cases.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the notice dated 30-11-2015 and direction to the bank to reconsider his service status. Alternatively, he sought liberty to approach the Registrar under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for a merits-based adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a petitioner, whose grievance is identical to those already set aside by the Registrar under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, can be denied access to that statutory remedy merely on the ground of limitation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Shri Amit Mishra, submitted that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, had already set aside identical notices in other cases involving similarly placed employees. He argued that denying the petitioner the same remedy on the ground of limitation would violate the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of consistency in administrative action. He further contended that Section 55 provides an efficacious statutory remedy that must be made available to all aggrieved persons in like circumstances.
For the Respondent
The Respondent did not file any written submission or appear before the Court. The Court proceeded on the basis of the petitioner’s pleadings and the Registrar’s prior orders.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the identical notices impugned in other cases had already been set aside by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis and equal protection under law require that persons in similar circumstances be treated alike.
"It would be conducive for the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner on merits."
The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, recognizing that the Registrar is the statutorily designated authority to adjudicate such disputes. However, it held that the petitioner must not be foreclosed from accessing this remedy due to a technical plea of limitation, especially when the same notices have been invalidated in other cases.
The Court further noted that the Registrar, as a quasi-judicial body, is empowered to condone delay under Section 55 if substantial justice so requires, and that the petitioner’s case presents a compelling ground for such condonation.
The Verdict
The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, within 15 days from the date of this order, accompanied by a certified copy of this judgment. The Registrar shall consider the petitioner’s grievance on merits, without dismissing it on the ground of limitation, and shall pass a well-reasoned and speaking order within 90 days of receipt of the petitioner’s application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Cannot Override Substantive Justice in Co-operative Disputes
- Practitioners must now argue that where identical disputes have been decided on merits by the Registrar, limitation cannot be used as a shield to deny relief to similarly situated petitioners.
- A petition under Section 55 must be treated as a substantive remedy, not a procedural formality.
Registrar Must Apply Consistency in Adjudication
- The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is now bound by its own prior decisions in identical cases.
- Any dismissal of a claim on limitation grounds, while allowing similar claims to proceed, invites challenge under Article 14.
- Legal representatives should cite this judgment to seek condonation of delay in Section 55 applications where comparable relief has been granted.
Statutory Remedies Must Be Accessible
- Courts will not permit procedural technicalities to defeat statutory rights where the legislature has provided a specific forum for redressal.
- This judgment reinforces that Section 55 is not merely a procedural avenue but a substantive right to be protected.
