Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri. S.R. Goyal And Ors. vs Shri Mehtab Singh, Deputy Registrar, ... on 25 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)107PLR290
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
ORDER Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Petitioners are the Managing Committee Members, President, Treasurer and Vice President of the Bankmen Cooperative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift and Credit Society, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the society) the society was registered on 25.3.1989. It was established with a view to encourage thrift and saving among its members by accepting deposits by offering other suitable facilities. Election of the office bearers of the society was held on 17.2.1992. Elected members hold the office for a period of three years.
2. Vide order dated 3.9.1993 Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, Managing Committee of the Society was ordered to be suspended under the orders of Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Raj Kumar and Rajinder Nath two Inspectors from the department of cooperative societies were appointed as Administrators for the purpose of running the society. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227-of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.9.1993 (Annexure P/1) suspending the Managing Committee primarily on the ground that action taken by respondent No.1 for suspending Managing Committee of the Society was in violation of the provisions of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); Managing Committee of the Society has been ordered to be suspended Under Section 34(2) of the Act while no proceedings were pending under Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act that pendency of proceedings under Sub-section (1) of section 34 was a condition precdent for invoking the powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act for suspending the Managing Committee of the Society. For facility of reference Section 34 is reproduced below:-
"34. Removal of Committee(1) if in the opinion of the Registrar, a committee persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or by bye laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, the Registrar may after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing, remove the committee and order fresh election of the committee or appoint administrators in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.
Provided that the appointment of administrators shall be for a period of one year which may be extended, from time to time, up to three years.
(2) Where the Registrar, while proceedings to take action Sub-section (1), is of the opinion that suspension of the committee during the period of proceeding is necessary in the interest of the Cooperative Society, he may suspend the committee and make such arrangement as he thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the society till the proceedings are completed.
Provided that if the committee so suspended is not removed it shall be reinstated and the period of suspension shall count towards it tenure; Provided farther that the period of suspension shall not exceed (3) The administrators appointed under Sub-section (1) shall arrange, for the eletion of a committee in accordance with the bye taws of the society failing which the Registrar shall arrange to hold the election.
(4) Before taking any action under Sub section (1) in respect of a Cooperative Society the Registrar shall consult the financing institution in which it is indebted."
3. Notice of motion was issued. In the written statement Filed, a preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that against the impugned order, an appeal was competent Under Section 114 of the Act and as such the petitioners be not permitted to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; assertion of the petitioners that the Managing Committee of the society was suspended in exercise of powers Under Section 34(2) of the Act while no proceedings Under Section 34 (1 )of the Act were pending , has not been specifically denied. Plea taken is that the proceedings Under Section 34 (2) of the Act were independent Proceedings and the Registrar was competent to suspend the Managing Committee even while no proceedings were pending Under Section 34(1) of the Act.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
5. We find no force in the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. Clause (f) of Section 114 reads as under:-
"114. Appeals-(1) an appeal shall lie under this section against -
(a) to (e) xx xx xx
(f) an order of the Registrar removing the Committee or members of the Committee of a cooperative society Under Section 34 or 35."
Appeal is provided under this Clause when the committee or a member is to be removed and not against an order of suspension. We hold that no appeal is competent against an order of suspension under Clause (f) of Section 114 of the Act.
6. On merits, we find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. A Plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that powers Under Section 34 (2) to suspend the Managing Committee of the Society can be exercised by the Registrar only during the pendency of the proceedings under Sub-section (1) of Section 34 Registrar can suspend the Committee during the period of proceedings only if he forms an opinion that it is necessary so to do in the interest of the cooperative society. Pendency of proceedings under Sub-section (1) of Section 34, is a condition precedent for invoking the powers to suspend the committee. If no proceedings are pending for removal of the Committee Under Section 34 (1) then orders' suspending the committee cannot be passed because the order of suspension can be operative only during the period of proceedings. In the absence of pendency of any proceeding, the question of suspension of the committee thus cannot arise. It is an admitted case before us that no proceedings Under Section 34 (1) of the Act for removal of the Committee have either been initiated or pending. Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana placed reliance on Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Haryana), (1979)81 P.L.R. 170 (F.B.) in which their Lordships were considering the question as to whether an opportunity to show cause was required to be given to a person who was being suspended during the pendency of proceedings Under Section 27 of the Punjab Cooperative .Societies Act, 1961 (as applicable in the State of Haryana). Section 27 (1) and 27 (2) of the Pun jab Cooperative Societies Act are equivalent to Section 34 (1) and 34 (2) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and are purimateria in terms. In Gurcharan Singh's case (Supra), the point in issue was as to whether a show cause notice was required to he given before suspending the society or a member as was the case when a commmittee was to be suspended. In case of super session, it was required that a notice be given before the committee is superseded. Counsel for the petitioners had argued in the said case that a notice was required to be given even while suspending a member or a committee as was the case when the society was to be superseded. This contention was negatived by their Lordships holding that an opportunity to show cause was provided in the case of super session of a committee and not while a member or a committee was to be suspended during the pendency of the proceedings for superseding the committee. The point in issue in the present case and Gurcharan Singh's case (Supra) are totally different. In Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) proceedings Under Section 87 (1) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act for superseding the Committee had been initiated and during the pendency of those proceedings a member was sought to be suspended. In the present case the admitted ease of the parties is that Section 34(1) of the Act for superseding the committee has not been invoked. Petitioners in the present case are not seeking an opportunity to show cause before suspension. Their case is that in the absence of the pendency of the proceedings Under Section 34 (1) the Committee cannot be suspended. As observed earlier pendency of the proceedings Under Section 34 (1) for superseding the committee is sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction to suspend a member or a committee Under Section 34 (2) of the Act. In the absence of the proceedings for superseding the committee, the committee or a member cannot be suspended.
7. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is accepted, the impugned order annexure P/1 is set aside, Managing Committee of the Society is restored and the Administrators appointed for running the society are directed to hand over the society to the members of the Managing Committee forthwith for its day today running. No costs.