Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Modern Anitasha Electronics, a proprietorship concern, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by an arbitrator appointed under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The respondents included The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., the arbitrator, and two other individuals. The preliminary issue arose as to whether the writ petition was maintainable before a Single Judge, given that the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 is not specifically mentioned in sub-Rules 1 to 43 of Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The court noted that this question of law had arisen repeatedly and there was no authoritative pronouncement. After hearing arguments, the court held that Rule 18 is not exhaustive and does not bar a Single Judge from hearing writ petitions against orders of authorities not listed therein. The court reasoned that the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 is a Central enactment, and its orders are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court further observed that the Rules are procedural and cannot curtail the constitutional power of the High Court under Article 226. Accordingly, the court proceeded to hear the petition on merits and allowed it, setting aside the arbitrator's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The decision clarifies that Single Judges of the Bombay High Court have jurisdiction to hear writ petitions challenging orders under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Single Judge's Power - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Rule 18 of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - The court held that Rule 18 is not exhaustive and does not bar a Single Judge from hearing writ petitions against orders of authorities not listed therein. The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 being a Central enactment, its orders are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and such petitions can be heard by a Single Judge. (Paras 1-10) B) Co-operative Law - Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 - Arbitration - Challenge to Arbitral Award - The petitioner challenged an order passed by an arbitrator appointed under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The court held that the writ petition is maintainable before a Single Judge as the Act is not excluded from the Single Judge's jurisdiction under the Rules. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging an order passed under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which is not specifically mentioned in sub-Rules 1 to 43 of Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, is maintainable before a Single Judge of the High Court.
Final Decision
The court held that the writ petition is maintainable before a Single Judge and proceeded to allow the petition, setting aside the arbitrator's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Rule 18 of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules
- 1960
- Jurisdiction of Single Judge under Article 226
- Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act
- 2002
- Maintainability of Writ Petition
