DISTRICT: JALPAIGURI

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA, WEST

BENGAL

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PETITION NO. OF 2024

(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.

____ Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS

____ Respondent

Memo of Parties

Sahara credit cooperative society Ltd.

___ Petitioner

Versus
1. The State of West Bengal

2. West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redresal Commission, Siliguri,

Jalpaiguri.

3. Smt. Deepa Ghosh

____ Respondents
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA, WEST
BENGAL

PETITION NO. OF 2023

(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.

____ Petitioner

Versus

1. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS

____ Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Hon’ble High Court and other Hon’ble
companion Judges of the aforesaid Court.

The humble Petitioner most respectfully begs to submit here under:

1. That the Petitioner by way of present petition is seeking indulgence

of this Hon’ble Court under its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside
the order, dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata.
2. That the present petition is being filed by the Petitioner in respect to
the present cause of action mentioned and the Petitioner submits
that for the same purpose/ cause of action, no other petition has
 been preferred by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court or before
any other Court of law.

3. That with respect to maintainability of the present petition the

petitioner society begs to submit that no statutory remedy has been
provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
interlocutory order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in
EA/63/2020.

4. That in support of its contention regarding the issue of

maintainability of present petition, the petitioner Society is also
placing its reliance over the judgement and order dated May 13,
2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 3072 OF 2022; titled as Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe
Buildhome Private Limited, para 12 of which states that-

“12. Whether the National Commission can be said to be a

tribunal for the purpose of exercise of powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India by the High Court is concerned, has been
considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Associate Cement Companies Limited (supra), which is required
to be referred to. In paragraphs 44 and 45, it is observed and
held as under:
“44. An authority other than a court may be vested by statute
with judicial power in widely different circumstances, which it
would be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define
exhaustively. The proper thing is to examine each case as it
arises, and to ascertain whether the powers vested in the
authority can be truly described as judicial functions or judicial
powers of the State. For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to
say that any outside authority empowered by the State to
determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending
parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them
satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers
of the State and may be regarded as a tribunal within the
meaning of Article 136. Such a power of adjudication implies that
the authority must act judicially and must determine the dispute
by ascertainment of the relevant facts on the materials before
itand by application of the relevant law to those facts. This test of
a tribunal is not meant to be exhaustive, and it may be that other
bodies not satisfying this test are also tribunals. In order to be a
tribunal, it is essential that the power of adjudication must be
derived from a statute or a statutory rule. An authority or body
deriving its power of adjudication from an agreement of the
parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal acting under
Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not satisfy
the test of a tribunal within Article 136. It matters little that such
a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a court. The
Arbitration Act, 1940 vests an arbitrator with some of the
trappings of a court, so also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
vests an authority acting under Section 10-A of the Act with many
of such trappings, and yet, such bodies and authorities are not
tribunals.
45. The word “tribunal” finds place in Article 227 of the
Constitution also, and I think that there also the word has the
same meaning as in Article 136.”
Therefore, the National Commission can be said to be a
‘Tribunal’ which is vested by Statute the powers to
determine conclusively the rights of two or more
contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy
between them. Therefore, as observed hereinabove in the
aforesaid decision, it satisfies the test of an authority
vested with the judicial powers of the State and therefore
may be regarded as a ‘Tribunal’ within the meaning of
Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. Also, in
a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under
 Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of the
remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party
before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, as it is appropriate that aggrieved
party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

5. That the petitioner is a Society, which is formed and duly

constituted under the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative
Societies Act 2002. Further, the petitioner is one of the societies
comprising the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies.

6. That the Respondent No. 3 instituted a consumer complaint bearing

no. CC/252/2018 against the petitioner society with regard to the
purported payment of maturity amount of the depositor/investor
therein which was allegedly invested/ deposited in the applicant
society by the name and style of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society
Ltd.

7. That the Hon’ble DCDRC, Kolkata Unit-III, the Respondent No. 2,

passed an order dated 26.12.2019, whereby directing the Petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Thousand
only) to the Respondent No.3.
The copy of order passed by the Hon’ble DCDRC is marked and
annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.

8. That for compliance of the said order passed by the Respondent

No.2, the Respondent no. 3 instituted an execution petition bearing
no. EA/63/2020.
The certified copy of execution application bearing no. EA/63/2020
preferred before the Hon’ble DCDRC, Kolkata Unit -III is marked and
annexed herewith as Annexure A-2.
 9. That the Petitioner in pursuance of the execution application filed by
the respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed an application for stay of
execution proceedings on the basis of the order dated 29.03.2023,
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP(C) 191 of 2022
titled as Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs. Union of India and others.
The certified copy of stay application filed in execution no.
EA/63/2020 before the Hon’ble DCDRC, Kolkata Unit - III is
marked and annexed herewith as Annexure A-3.

10. That the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit – III, erroneously rejected the
stay of execution application filed by the petitioner vide its order
dated 20.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’).
The certified copy of order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the Hon’ble
DCDRC Kolkata Unit – III, is marked and annexed herewith as
Annexure A-4.

11. That the Petitioner would like to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble
Court that the purpose of the execution application filed by the
Respondent No.3 is for the compliance of the final order passed by
the Respondent No.2 in CC No. 252 of 2018.
12. That in the interest of the public and taking into account the
practical difficulties being faced by the Group of Societies, the Union
of India/Central Government, Ministry of Corporation had moved an
I.A. bearing no. 56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 191 of
2022 titled as Pinak Pani Mohanty Versus Union of India & Others
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
13. That the Hon’ble Apex Court thereafter, was pleased to pronounce
the judgment on 29.03.2023 in which certain directions were given
for redressal of grievances of the depositors of Sahara Group of Co–
Operative Societies, of which the applicant society is also a part.
The copy of order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in WP(C) 191 of 2022 is marked and annexed
herewith as Annexure A-5.
14. That the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its aforesaid order dated
29.03.2023, directed SEBI to deposit the amount of Rs 5,000 Crores
in the account of Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, so that
the same may be disbursed in favour of the genuine depositors of
the aforesaid Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies after proper
identification and verification of the documents produced by the
claimants/ investors/ depositors.
15. That Apex Court has further directed that the entire exercise will be
completed by the Central Registrar under the supervision of the
Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.
Subhash Reddy (Former Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India) and one Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal Advocate. The
relevant portion of the order dated 29.03.2023 is reproduced herein
below:

“.. the prayer sought in the present application seems to be

reasonable and which shall be in the larger public interest/
interest of the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of
Co-operative Societies,. Therefore the present application is
disposed of with the following directions:-
i. Out of the total amount of Rs. 24,979.67/- Crores
lying in the Sahara-SEBI refund account, Rs. 5000
Crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, who in turn shall disburse the
same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of
the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies….
ii. The disbursement shall be supervised and monitored
by justice R. Subhash Reddy, former judge of this
court with the able assistance of Shri Gaurav
Agarwal, learned advocate who is appointed as
amicus curiae to assist Justice R Subhash Reddy as
well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies
 in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of
the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies…..”

16. That it is to be noted that the main contention of the Respondent

No. 2 in dismissing the application for stay of execution proceeding
filed by the Petitioner is the following “Having gone through the
application as well as heard the submission of Ld. Advocate
appearing for the respective party this commission is of the view that
the application is liable to be rejected as the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court bears no specific order regarding stay of the
execution proceedings. Application is hereby rejected.”
17. That keeping into view the aforementioned observation made by the
Respondent No.2, the petitioner would want to elucidate the primary
reason for the passing of the order dated 29.03.2023 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
18. That it is to be noted that the Ld. Solicitor General of India, Shri
Tushar Mehta has specifically mentioned in his arguments placed
before the Hon’ble Apex Court as to the purpose of the application
being preferred by the Union of India, Ministry of co-operation. The
Ld. Solicitor General of India’s statement was recorded by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and the excerpt of the same is being reproduced
herein below:
“Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has submitted that a
total amount of Rs. 24,979.67/- Crores is lying unutilised with the
SEBI in “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account, which has been deposited
pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court.
It is submitted that, thus, the corpus which is lying in “Sahara – SEBI
Refund Account” already includes the amount which belongs to the
depositors of the aforesaid Sahara Group Co-operative Society Ltd.
He has stated at the bar that the amount deposited in “Sahara-SEBI
Refund Account” is lying unutilized and in fact due to large number of
continuing complaints against the Sahara Group of Co-operative
Societies and the amount lying unutilized is also consisting of the
 depositors of Sahara Group of Co-operative Societies, if Rs. 5000
Crores is transferred to the Central Registrar of Co-operative Socieites
and thereafter the same is disbursed against the legitimate dues of
the depositors of the Sahara Group of Co-operative Societies, it will be
just, proper and equitable. ”
19. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upon hearing the
aforementioned facts and narratives, agreed upon the same and
passed the order dated 29.03.2023, whereby forming a committee,
including the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter
referred to as ‘CRCS’), Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of
the Supreme Court of India and Shri Gaurav Aggawal as amicus
curae.
20. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by constituting such a
committee as mentioned hereinabove granted exclusive jurisdiction
to the said committee for the disbursal of the amount of the
depositors which was already lying in the Sahara-SEBI Refund
Account.
21. That it is to be further noted and also reiterated by the Petitioner
that the purpose of the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was manifold and the same is being
summarised herein below:
a. Money of the investors/ depositors already deposited in the
Sahara – SEBI Refund Account;
b. Primary purpose to disburse the amount among
depositors due to the large number of continuing
complaints against the Sahara group of Co-operative
Societies;
c. The order dated 29.03.2023 passed in the larger interest of
the depositors of the Sahara Group of Co-operative
Societies and as the same was just, proper, reasonable
and equitable.
22. That it is to be noted that the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit-III failed
to recognize and identify the true purpose of the order passed by the
Apex Court and limited its observation to a mere technicality that no
specific order was passed with regard to the stay of execution
proceedings. The Petitioner would like to submit that the Apex Court
has unambiguously established that the order dated 29.03.2023
was passed due to the rising number of complaints, of which the
impugned order and the case it has arisen out of is also included. It
is logical conclusion to derive that when an order is passed in larger
public interest, it cannot be expected that the Hon’ble Apex court
will pass a separate order for every pending litigation against the
Sahara Group of Co-operative Societies.
23. That pursuant to the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, the Central Registrar of Cooperative Society
has also posted a notification on its website updating about the
steps taken to implement the order dated 29-03-2023 and also laid
down the procedure for such disbursement of the amount including
but not limited to verification, e-KYC authentication etc.
A copy of the notification dated 20.06.2023 is annexed and marked
herewith as ANNEXURE A6.
24. That the Sahara Refund Portal was launched on 18.07.2023 in
order to facilitate the payments and execute the order of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the said portal is available at the following link
________________.
25. That it is of the essence to bring to the knowledge of this Hon’ble
Court that thousands of applications have already been received
through the aforementioned portal and numerous payments have
already been made.
26. That the primary prayer of the Petitioner in its stay of execution
application was to stay the execution proceedings and direct the
decree holder to approach the CRCS through the set mechanism (as
provided herein above) in order to realise its dues and in-turn also
 comply with the final order passed by the Hon’ble DCDRC, Kolkata
Unit – III.
27. That the Petitioner has also filed similar applications in other
DCDRCs, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions
(hereinafter referred to as ‘SCDRC’) and Hon’ble High Courts and the
said judicial institutions have upheld the letter and spirit of the
order dated 29.03.2023 and passed the following orders:-
a. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission considered the application in
its judgment/order dated 19.07.2023 passed in FA No.
1495/2019, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. &
anr. Vs. Hemant Agarwal and was pleased to pass the
following order:
“In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal by
observing that the amount as ordered to be paid by the
District Commission shall be payable to the respondent
in terms of the directions issued by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Pinak Pani Mohanty”
Copy of the order dated 19.07.2023, passed in FA
No.1495/2019, titled as Sahara Credit Co-operative
Society Ltd. & anr. Vs. Hemant Agarwal is annexed
and marked herewith as ANNEXURE A7.
b. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
the matter of Umesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs. State of
UP & Ors., Writ-C No. 3827 of 2023], while reiterating
the observations and judgment made by the Apex
Court in the order dated 29.03.2023 and in corollary to
the same, passed the order dated 10.04.2023, the
relevant portion of which is being reproduced
hereunder:
“…it would be appropriate that the petitioner may
approach the Central Registrar of Cooperative Society or
 to Amicus Curiae recommended by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court for the payment of his maturity amount.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is

disposed of.”

Copy of the order dated 10.04.2023, passed in Writ-C

No. 3827 of 2023, titled as Umesh Kumar
Vishwakarma vs. State of UP & Ors is annexed and
marked herewith as ANNEXURE A8.
c. Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission Chandigarh, in the case titled as Reena
Devi versus Humara India Credit Co-operative Society
Ltd. vide Appeal No. 34/2023, the Hon’ble SCDRC took
cognizance of the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and in corollary to the same
passed an order dated 26-05-2023, the relevant
portion of which is being reproduced hereunder:-

“However, for the reasons slated in our detailed order

dated 16.05.2023, we take our Judicial hands off from
the present matter in view of the order dated
29.03.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Case titled as “Pinak Pani Mohanty VS Union of India &
Ors. Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 191/2022”. In this view of
the matter, the Appellant is directed to take necessary
steps for recovery of due amount through the Central
Registrar of Cooperative Society, as per the mandate of
Hon’ble Supreme Court. if so advised. The present
appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above. All
pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off
accordingly.”
Copy of the order dated 26.05.2023, passed in Appeal
No. 34/2023, titled as Reena Devi versus Humara
 India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. is annexed and
marked herewith as ANNEXURE A9.
d. Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission Chandigarh, in the case titled as Reena
Devi versus Humara India Credit Co-operative Society
Ltd. vide Appeal No. 34/2023, the Hon’ble SCDRC took
cognizance of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and in corollary to the same
passed an order dated 26-05-2023, the relevant
portion of which is being reproduced hereunder:-
e. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Mahesh kumar Agarwal & others versus State of U.P
and Ors. in Writ C-33108 of 2022, keeping in view of
an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 29-03-
2023 and the order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure A-8)
disposed of the writ petition vide order dated
10.05.2023, with the following order:-
“As jointly prayed by learned counsel for the parties as
afore noted, all the above writ petitions are disposed of
in terms of the judgement and order dated 10.4.2023
passed in Writ C No. 3827 of 2023 (Umesh Kumar
Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).”
Copy of the order dated 10.05.2023, passed in Writ C-
33108 of 2022, titled as Mahesh kumar Agarwal &
others versus State of U.P and Ors. is annexed and
marked herewith as ANNEXURE A10.
f. That, in the matter of Saharayn Universal
Multipurpose Society Ltd. & Ors. vs. Suresh Chandra
Arya [Appeal No. 295/2020], the Ld. State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at
Lucknow, vide order dated 27.04.2023 stated that the
amount invested shall be disbursed to the investor as
per the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Apex
 Court, i.e., through the Central Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, New Delhi in accordance with
the directions provided and within the time period as
stipulated in the order dated 29.03.2023.
Copy of the order dated 27.04.2023, passed in Appeal
No. 295/2020, titled as Saharayn Universal
Multipurpose Society Ltd. & Ors. vs. Suresh Chandra
Arya is annexed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE
A11
g. That, in the matter Sahara Credit Cooperative Society
Ltd & ors. vs. Anil Kumar Singh & ors. [Appeal No.
900/2019], the Ld. State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow,
vide order dated 11.04.2023 stated that the amount
invested shall be disbursed to the investor as per the
order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Apex Court, i.e.,
through the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
New Delhi in accordance with the directions provided
and within the time period as stipulated in the order
dated 29.03.2023.
Copy of the order dated 11.04.2023, passed in Appeal
No. 900/2019, titled as Sahara Credit Cooperative
Society Ltd & ors. vs. Anil Kumar Singh & ors is
annexed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE A12

28. That it is imperative to note that in addition to the plethora of orders

mentioned herein above, wherein every judicial institution has
interpreted and upheld the spirit of the order dated 29.03.2023
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its order dated 31.07.2023 has reiterated its position on the
disbursement of the amount of the investors, by stating the
following:
 “It suffices to say that for the investors who are seeking refund of
their amount from Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Ltd. or other
Sahara Group of Companies/ Societies, interim directions for
disbursement of Rs. 5000 Crores through a prescribed mechanism
have already been issued by this Court on 29.03.2023”
29. That the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – III, vide not allowing the
application and not directing the Respondent No.3 to approach the
CRCS has acted detrimental to the interest of the Respondent No.3,
itself as the exclusive jurisdiction to disburse amounts deposited
with the petitioner lies with the CRCS as has been sufficiently
demonstrated hereinabove . It has hampered the ability of the
Respondent No.3 to get her refund, through the mechanism
established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the CRCS.
30. That such an act by the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – III has led to
serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of the fundamental
principles of law of justice, where if this Hon’ble Court does not
interfere a grave injustice will remain uncorrected.
31. That the findings of the Respondent No. 2 are so perverse, that no
reasonable person has been established through the judgments
provided herein above, could have possibly come to such a
conclusion which the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – III has come to.
32. That keeping in to view the aforementioned facts and circumstances
it would be safe to conclude that the provision of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has conferred the power of superintendence to
the High Courts in order to rectify such errors and it is axiomatic
that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no
miscarriage of justice.
33. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly expressed
the importance of such supervisory and discretionary powers of the
Hon’ble High Courts and the same has been sufficiently documented
in its judgments of Garment Craft v Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4
SCC 181 and Estralla Rubber v Dass Estate (P) Ltd (2001) 8 SCC 97
 INTERIM PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the abovementioned facts and

circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:

h. Stay the proceedings in EA No. 63 of 2020 pending

adjudication before the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – III till
further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the abovementioned facts and

circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:

i. Set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 passed by

the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Kolkata Unit -III, in Execution Application bearing no.
EA/63/2020.
ii. Direct the Respondent No.3 to approach the CRCS, through
the Sahara Refund Portal for the disbursement of her
decreed amount
iii. Pass any such other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice