Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: comfed in Ram Sanjivan Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 January, 2016Matching Fragments
, passed, in CWJC No. 15382 of 2013, by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The appellant had sought for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, quashing an order, dated 02.04.2013, passed by the Managing Director, Co-operative Milk Federation Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'COMFED'), whereby, in exercise of power conferred under Section 41(5) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1935), the Managing Committee of Tirhut Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'TIMUL') came to be superseded. The appellant had also challenged, in the said writ proceeding, the letter, dated 19.07.2013, issued by the Chief Election Officer, Bihar State Election Authority, Patna, directing the Managing Director, COMFED and other officials to prepare the Electoral Roll for the purpose of holding an election afresh so as to constitute the Managing Committee of the TIMUL. The appellant had, in the writ application, also sought for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the powers and functions of the Managing Committee of TIMUL by ordering status quo ante with effect from 02.04.2013.
7. By virtue of the decision taken by the Principal Secretary to the Department fixing surcharge amount payable against all the members of the Managing Committee, because of the irregularities detected in course of audit, the members of the Managing Committee of TIMUL became incompetent to hold their post by operation of Rule 23 read with Rule 24 of the Bihar Co- operative Societies Rules, 1959.
8. The Managing Director, COMFED, in these circumstance, issued the order, dated 02.04.2013, holding the Director and Members of the Managing Committee of TIMUL to have lost their eligibility and were, thus, not competent to continue on their respective posts and, therefore, exercising power under Section 41(5) of the Act of 1935, superseded the Managing Committee. In order to fill up vacuum created by the loss of eligibility of the Board of Directors and Members of TIMUL to hold their posts, the Managing Director, COMFED, appointed Dr. Arun Kashinath Kulkarni, the General Manager, COMFED, as Administrator of the TIMUL.
10. The sole ground on which the appellant has sought to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge is that TIMUL is one of the Member Societies of the COMFED. The COMFED has been held to be a Multi-State Co-operative Society within the meaning of Section 2 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. It is, accordingly, the contention of the appellant that TIMUL, which is one of the member Societies of COMFED, should also be treated as a Multi-State Co-operative Society under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. If TIMUL is treated as a Multi-State Co-operative Society, there would have been no question of exercise of power by the Managing Director, COMFED, by issuing the impugned order, dated 02.04.2013, under Section 41(5) of the Act of 1935, the said provisions being not applicable to Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1935 do not govern the functioning of TIMUL. He has, accordingly, submitted that on the ground of pendency of surcharge proceeding, the Managing Director, COMFED, could not have exercised power under Section 41(5) of the Act of 1935, and superseded the Managing Committee of TIMUL,.
13. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel representing COMFED, on the other hand, has submitted that the area of operation of TIMUL is within the State of Bihar and, therefore, Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, has no applicability in respect of TIMUL as the said Act applies only to such a Co-operative Society, which either has area of operation not confined to one State or has area of operation in more that one States. Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel, has submitted that by a specific notification issued by the Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar, dated 31.10.1996, in exercise of power under Section 46(2) of the Bihar State Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, the Managing Director, COMFED, has been vested with the powers of Registrar exercisable under various provisions of the said Act including the provisions as contained in Section 41 of the Act and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order, which was challenged in the writ proceeding.