Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, ... on 8 January, 2002
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner is the President of the Ghurani Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited. He was elected to this office on October 3, 1997. He is aggrieved by the order dated December 2, 1999 by which he has been placed under suspension. This order, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 3 with the writ petition, has been challenged primarily on the ground that it does not conform to the requirements of Section 27 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It has been inter-alia averred that a Show Cause Notice was given to the Society on September 23, 1999. A reply was filed. Without appreciating the facts as given in the reply and without noticing the legal position, the third respondent had passed the impugned order under the pressure of respondent No. 5. In para 10(d) of the petition, it has been inter-alia averred as under:-
"In the present case....no proceedings whatsoever have been initiated under Section 27(1) of the Act for removal or suppression of the committee. The language of show cause notice dated 23.9.99 is very vague. It is no where mentioned as to under which provision of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or service Rules, it has been served....."
2. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Gora Singh v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 42. On this basis, the petitioner claims that the impugned Show Cause Notice as well as the order of suspension deserve to be set aside.
Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The specific averment as noticed above has not been denied by the third respondent in the reply which has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. Similarly, even respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not controverted the above statement. Despite this, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. Mr. Balwinder Singh, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of suspension does not conform to the provisions of Section 27(2), Thus, it cannot be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by counsel for respondent No. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the other respondents.
5. The short question that arises for consideration is - Does the impugned order conform to the provisions of law?
6. A copy of the impugned order is at Annexure P.3 with the writ petition. A perusal of this order shows that the third respondent had not accepted the reply given by the Managing Committee of the Society. Thus, he had ordered the suspension of the Managing Committee including the petitioner "under Section 27(2) of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961....."
7. Section 27 provides for the removal or suspension of a committee or member thereof. Clause (1) provides that "if in the opinion of the Registrar, a committee or any member of a committee persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it, ....the Registrar may after giving the committee or the member, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity to state its or his objections...., remove the committee and appoint a Government servant as an administrator...., remove the member and get the vacancy filled up....' Thus, the Registrar is competent to proceed to order the removal of a person as a member or an office-bearer of the Committee if he finds that there was persistent default or negligence in the performance of duties. Clause (2) of Section 27 provides as under:-
"Where the Registrar, while proceeding to take action underSub-section (1) is of opinion that suspension of the committee or member during the period of proceedings is necessary in the interest of the cooperative society, he may suspend the committee or member, as the case may be, and where the committee is suspended, make such arrangements as he thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the society till the proceedings are completed:
Provided that if the committee or member so suspended is to be removed, it or he shall be reinstated and the period of suspension shall count towards its or his term."
8. A perusal of the above provision would show that it authorises the Registrar to order the suspension of the committee "during the period of proceedings." The Member or Society can remain suspended "till the proceedings are completed." Thus, the power of suspension can be invoked and exercised during the pendency of the proceedings for removal.
9. In the present case, it has not been disputed that no proceedings for removal of the Managing Committee or the petitioner have been initiated. In this situation, the action of the third respondent viz. the Assistant Registrar in proceeding to order the suspension of the Committee which automatically resulted in the suspension of the petitioner from the office of the President, does not conform to the requirements of the Statute.
10. Mr. Balwinder Singh, counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the impugned order had been passed only on account of the resistance of the Society in allowing respondent No. 4 to join as a Manager. He has further submitted that this action was being taken by the third respondent under the influence of respondent No. 5 who is interested in respondent No. 4.
11. In view of the above-noted factual position, it does not appear to be necessary to examine this aspect of the mater.
12. On behalf of respondent No. 4, it was pointed out that the petitioner had an Effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 68. The counsel appears to be right. However, it is the admitted position that the impugned order was passed in December 1999. The writ petition was filed soon thereafter. The matter has remained pending in this Court for almost two years. In this situation, it would not be just and fair to now relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before the Competent Authority. This matter could have been agitated before the Motion Bench at the stage of the hearing of the writ petition for admission. The petition having been admitted, I am not inclined to now put the petitioner back in the lap of the Government.
13. No other point has been raised. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is al lowed. The impugned order, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 3 with the writ petition, is quashed. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the official respondents, there would be no order as to costs.