Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shravan Kumar Deepavare vs Deputy Registrar / Deputy Commissioner ... on 17 July, 2012
Writ Petition No.2988/2012
17.7.2012
Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for respondent no.1.
Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 11. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 14.2.2012, Annexure P11, passed in Miscellaneous Case No.31/2011 by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal (in short, "the Tribunal") whereby in a contempt application it has held that earlier Board of Directors was not reinstated and permitted respondent nos.2 to 10 to function as new Board of Directors.
Respondent no.11 Vidyut Sharmik Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited is a Co-operative Society. On 26.8.2007 the petitioner was elected as member of the Board of Directors of the Society. Under sub-section (7-A)(i) of section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, "the Act") the term of Board of Directors is of five years from the date on which first meeting of the Board of Directors is held. Respondent no.1 Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Society, however by exercising powers under section 53(1) vide order dated 15.2.2010 superseded the functioning of the Board of Directors for a period of two years and appointed one Mr. P. S. Thakur to manage the affairs of the Society. The petitioner challenged the order of supersession in Appeal No.78(1)11/2010 before the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Society, but it was dismissed vide order dated 29.1.2011. Undeterred, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.18/2011 before the Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2011 and the order dated 15.2.2010 of supersession was set aside.
During the pendency of second appeal the person appointed to manage the affairs of Society made an arrangement for the constitution of a new Board of Directors as provided under section 53(6) of the Act. The arrangement was by an election held on 4.5.2011 in which respondent nos.2 to 10 were elected as members of the new Board of Directors. And because of the disqualification under section 53(12) none of the members of the superseded Board of Directors, including the petitioner, were eligible to contest that election.
As already mentioned above, sub-section (7-A)(i) of section 49 of the Act provides that the term of Board of Directors shall be five years. The proviso to this sub-section clearly mandates that where a Board of Directors superseded is reinstated, as a result of any order of any court or authority, the period during which the Board of Directors remained under supersession shall be excluded in computing the period of five year term. Thus, setting aside of the supersession order dated 15.2.2010 by the Tribunal resulted in the restoration of the position of petitioner and other members of the Board of Directors as it stood on the date when the order of supersession was passed. But respondent nos.2 to 10 refused to step down gracefully. Instead, they started creating hurdles in the reinstatement of the earlier Board of Directors. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation Annexure P5 to the Deputy Registrar who, by order dated 15.9.2011, held that after passing of the order dated 30.6.2011 by the Tribunal, the earlier Board of Directors stood reinstated. But again despite this order, respondent nos.2 to 11 continued to defy the mandate of law. Not only this, they even filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal under section 10 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the petitioner. The Tribunal also surprisingly by the impugned order dated 14.2.2012 has held that the earlier Board of Directors did not come into existence despite setting aside of the order of its supersession.
Having regard to the fact situation of the case, we are firmly of the view that order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is a well-settled principle of law that setting aside of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of passing of the order which has been set aside (See M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras AIR 1992 SC 1439 para 10). Therefore, the earlier Board of Directors which was superseded is deemed to be reinstated after the setting aside of the order of its supersession. And the period during which the Board of Directors remained under suspension is also to be excluded in computing the period of five year term as clearly provided in sub-section (7-A)(i) of section 49 of the Act. The Tribunal apparently lost sight of the fact that a new Board of Directors of which respondent nos.2 to 11 are members was constituted only by way of arrangement during the period of supersession of earlier Board of Directors. Therefore, once the order of supersession of earlier Board of Directors was set aside, it is restored to the position as it stood on the date of the order of supersession. Moreover, in a contempt petition filed by respondent nos.2 to 11 the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hold that the earlier Board of Directors was not reinstated. For these reasons we have no hesitation in quashing the order dated 14.2.2012. We accordingly quash the order and direct respondent nos.2 to 11 not to interfere in the functioning of earlier Board of Directors.
The petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by respondent nos.2 to 11 to the petitioner.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps