Patna High Court
Lachandeo Sahni And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 27 April, 1981
Equivalent citations: AIR1982PAT48, 1982(30)BLJR113, AIR 1982 PATNA 48, 1982 BBCJ 14, (1981) BLJ 674, 1981 BLJR 113
JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing annexure-1 to this application which is an order dated 30-1-1981, passed by Minister, Cooperation admitting a petition filed by Rameshwar Chaudhary of Ramgarhwa Fishermen's Co-operative Society and staying the operation of orders dated 8-1-1981 and 16-1-1981, passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Tirhut Division.
2. There is a Co-operative Society by the name of Ramgarhwa Fishermen's Co-operative Society, The annual general meeting of the society was to be held on 21-!12-1980. The elections for the Managing Committee of the Society were to be held on the same day. On 16-12-1980 Kunkun Sahni, a member of . the Society filed an application before District Co-operative Officer, Motihari in which it was prayed that the meeting should be stayed, as all members had not been given notice of the annual general meeting. The District Co-operative Officer stayed the holding of the annual general meeting and election scheduled to be held on 21-12-1980. He registered a dispute in terms of Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and fixed 3-1-1981 as the date for hearing of the dispute. Despite the order for staying the holding of the elections passed by District Co-operative Officer, some of the members held annual general meeting on 21-12-1980 as scheduled. The result of the elections was challenged before Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirhut Division. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies by order dated 8-1-1981 heard the petitioner, admitted the dispute and issued notice of the dispute to the opposite party. Pending the final hearing of the dispute, the functioning of the newly elected Managing Committee was directed to remain stayed until further orders. The order of the Deputy Registrar is annexure-3 to this application. On 16-1-1981 the Deputy Registrar appointed the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies as Special Officer of the Society. On 30-1-1981 respondent No. 5 Rameshwar Sahni filed an application before Minister, Co-operation in which it was prayed that orders dated 8-1-1981 and 16-1-1981 (annexures 3 and 4) be set aside. On the very same day the Minister for Co-operation by annexure-1 admitted the petition of respondent No. 5 and stayed the operations of orders dated 8-1-1981 and 16-1-1981. The effect of the order of the Minister was that the newly elected Managing Committee was to function in place of the Special Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the Minister for Co-operation contained in annexure-1 the petitioners have moved this Court by the present application for quashing annexure-1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Minister for Cooperation had no jurisdiction to call for the case records from a Court constituted under Section 48 of the Act. He relied upon Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 1494) for the proposition that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies in seisin of a dispute under Section 48 of the Act is a Court. The proposition thus urged is unexceptionable. A Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies hearing a dispute is certainly a Court. The further proposition, however, that the Minister could not have called for the records of the case is, however, difficult to accept. It is not in controversy that in passing the orders contained in annexure-1 the Minister exercised the jurisdiction conferred upon him by Section 65A of the Act which reads as follows :
"65-A. The power of the State Government to review the order of the Registrar -- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the State Government may, of its own motion or on an application made to it by any party aggrieved by the constitution or reconstitution, amalgamation, election, supersession, liquidation or any other matter concerning working of the society call for any record of inspection or enquiry made under this Act or proceedings of any matter pending before the Registrar or his subordinate or any person acting under his authority and examine and pass such orders as it may deem fit."
A bare look at Section 65A of the Act, quoted above, shows that the State Government may of its own motion of on an application call for any record of any proceeding of any matter pending before the Registrar or his subordinate or any person acting under his authority and examine and pass such orders as may deem fit. The section also lays down that orders may be passed by the State Government in regard to election of any society besides other matters. The stand "of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Minister could pass orders in terms of Section 65A of the Act only in regard to Executive orders passed by the Registrar or his subordinates. I regret, it is difficult to accept the restricted meaning given to the word "election" occurring in Section 65A of the Act. The expression "election" must cover all aspects of the election including election dispute. The submission that the expression "election" in Section 65A cannot cover election disputes was precisely raised in Hare Krishna Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (1979 BB CJ (HC) 109). The Hon'ble the Chief Justice while disposing of that case held in unambiguous terms in para 12 of the judgment that the expression "election" will also cover "election dispute" where an election has been challenged. I find myself in complete agreement with the law laid down in Hare Krishna Upadhyay"s case (supra). The submission urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Minister had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has no substance and must be rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Minister being an Executive functionary could have had no jurisdiction to interfere in a judicial matter pending in the Court of the Deputy Registrar. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, a judicial system would come to a naught, if an executive authority were to be permitted to forestall judicial proceedings and impose its own verdict. There is no scope for this submission in the face of the special provisions of Section 65A of the Act. The law contained in Section 65A of the Act explicitly lays down that the State Government, an Executive functionary, may pass such orders as it may deem fit. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner thus lacks substance and is hereby rejected.
5. It was then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Section 65A of the Act empowered the State Government to pass appropriate orders and not the Minister. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the Executive authority of the State Government vests in the Government and the Secretary of the Department and not in the Minister, According to learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the Secretary of the Department of Co-operation or the Governor could pass orders in terms of Section 65A of the Act, but not a Minister. This submission is also without sub-stance and must be rejected. It is well known that the Governor functions on the aid and advice of Ministers. For discharging the functions of the executive, the Governor has framed Rules of Executive Business in terms of Article 166(3) of the Constitution. Rule 21 in Part III of the Rules of Executive Business lays down that cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister-in-charge who may by means of standing orders give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the Department. In the First Sch. to the Schedules is the list of the Departments. The Cooperative Department is listed as Number 19, Rule 21 of the Rules of the Executive Business thus clearly lays down that the Minister for the Department can dispose of certain matters. In my view, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the expression "State Government occurring in Section 65A of the Act does not include the Minister for a particular Department. In the instant case, the Minister has not set aside the orders of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, but he has only stayed the operations of the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar. Taking a comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the view that the Minister for Co-operation had the jurisdiction to pass the orders contained in Annexure-1 whereby the operation of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies was stayed.
6. For the reasons, stated above, I find no merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs.