VBERPAL SINGH v. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, U.P & Ors.

Appeal by a special leave from the judgment and order dated November 24, 1971 of <the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No. 6667 /71. A.K. Sen, A. P. Singh Chauhan, V. C. Prashar and Dharmpal Singh Chauhan, for the petitioner and appellant. C. K. Daphtary, B. Sen and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents Nos. 1-3 (in writ petition and Appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delibered by RAY, J. The petitioner in this writ petition impeaches the order dated 14 July, 1971 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Meerut, By that order the Deputy Registrar, Coopera the committee of tive Societies suspended the President and management of J ahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., J ahangirabad. The petitioner V eerpal Singh was the President of the Jahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society. By that order the Deputy Registrar further appointed Ghanshyam Murari Sharma, Additional District Cooperative Officer, Bulandshahr as Adminis trator ro carry on the functions of the society. The appeal is from the order dated 29 November, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing in limine the petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution. In that petition the appellant Yograj Singh and others challenged the aforesaid order dated 14 July, 1971 suspending the President and the committee of management of Jahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society. Two questions fall for determination in the writ petltion and the appeal. First, whether the Deputy Registrar under the Cooperative E F G H 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 S.C.R. Societies Act, 1965 referred to as the Act could suspend President and the committee of management of J ahangirabad Co operative Marketing Society. Secondly, whether the Deputy Registrar could temporarily appoint an administrator. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner raised three contentions for impeaching the order of suspension. First, it was said that the order of suspension is void because it is made malafiide and exercised for the collateral purpose of withdrawing the petitioner from the com mittee of management to which he was elected and in which he continued his office. Secondly, it was said that the order of suspen sion is bad because there were no supersession proceedings as con templated in section 35 of the Act. The Registrar did not give an opportunity to the Society and did not hear the Society. The Registrar did not obtain the opinion of the general body of society as to the suspension of the committee. Thirdly, it was said that !lie suspension order could not have the effect of appointment of an administrator under section 35 of the Act. inspection of In the month of April 1969 there was an J ahangirabad Cooperative Marketing ·Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society). That inspection note has, however, not been disclosed. In the month of October, 1969 the petitioner was elected as a Director of the management of the society. Again, in the month of October, 1969 the petitioner was appointed as a dele gate by the committee of management of the Society to the Pro vincial Cooperative Federation. Subsequently, the general body of the Provincial Cooperative Federation elected the petitioner to the committee of management of the Federation. In the month of April 1970, the petitioner was also elected Chairman of the Provincial Cooperative Federation. In the month of Se_ptember, 1970 at the instance and under the direction of the Deputy Registrar who had been a former Secretary of the Federation and of1Shri Yadav_ the then Minister of Coopera tive Society, the Uttar Pradesh Government nominated 10 members and a Chairman of the Federation. The petitioner who was then Chairman, was however omitted from the list of the U.P. Government. In the month of December, 1970 the new Ministry of the U.P. Government revoked the previous order of Govern ment made in !he m_onth of September, 1970. In the month of June, 1971 there was again a new Ministry in which Shri Yadav again became the Minister of Cooperative Society. The Government then nominated 10 members committee of management of the Federation under section 34(1 ) of ~ Act and appointed the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Society as the President. A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G II VEERPAL v. REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES (Ray, J.) 421 In the month of June, 1971 a lot was drawn to find out which of the Directors of the Provincial Cooperative Federation were to vacate the office in order to make room for the nominees of the Government. The petitioner survived his office in the lot. The petitioner made an application for amendmen~ of. the petition. In that application for amendment, allegations were made that Shri Y adav and Tyagi both contrived to suspend the com mittee of management of the Federation. It was also alleged that the withdrawal of the deJegation of the petitioner to the Provincial Cooperative Federation was ante dated. The order of withdrawal . was dated 15 July, 1971. The letter dated 15 July; 1971 is said to have been sent by the administrator of the Society withdrawing the delegation of th~petitioner to the U.P. Provincial Cooperative Federation. The petitioner denies that alleged fact. In the prayer of the petition for amendment the petitioner asked for quashing the order dated 15 July, 1971. · In view of the fact that the petitioner did not allege facts ·ta· raise any plea of malafide acts on the part of the respondents this Court did not allow any amendment of the peti(ion. · The power of suspension of the committee of management to be found in section 35(2) of the Act. is. Section 35 (2) of the Act is as follows "Where the Registrar, while proceeding to take· action under sub-section (1) is of opinion that suspension of the committee of management during the period of proceedings is necessary in the interest of the society, he may suspend the committee of management which shall thereupon cease ta function, and make such arrangement as '1e thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the society till the proceedings are completed.: , Provided that if the committee of management sa · suspended is not Sl!l'erseded it shall be reinstated and the· . period during which it has remained suspended shall count towards its term". to· The Registrar has power under section 35(1) of the Act supersede the committee of management. The circumstances under which he can exercise his powers are when in the opinion of the Registrar the society makes default or is negligen~ in performance of duties imposed on it by the Act or t;he rules or the bye-laws of the society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, or is otherwise not func tioning properly, the Registrar after affording the committee of ~anagement a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtain- ing the opinion of the general body of the society in a general meet- .. • ' _., • ~ \ • a ; - ... ~· ~22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 s.c.R. ing called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order in writing, supersede the committee of management. These provisions indicate the circumstances under which the .Registrar has power to supersede or suspend the committee of management and to appoint an administrator. Section 35(2) of the Act confers power on the Registrar to suspend the committee of management during the period of proceedings for supersession. The Registrar has also power under section 35(2) of the Act to make arrangemeno as he thinks proper for the management of the society till the proceedings are completed. The power to suspend the com mittee of management during the period of proceedings is exercis able when proceedings for supersession have commenced. Section 35(1) of the Act shows that when the Registrar is of opinion that the commiHee of a cooperative society makes default or is negli gent in the performance of duties or is otherwise not functioning ·properly the Registrar may supersede the committee of manage ment and has to give an opportunity to the society to be heard in that behalf. The Registrar has also to obtain the opinion of !)le general body of the society. Therefore, the opinion of the Registrar is to be followed by some definite act which will commence proceedings for supersession. The provisions in the Act indicate that some definite step like the issue of a notice must be taken under the provisions of section 35(1) of the Act with a view show that proceedings for supersession of !he committee are set in motion. It is therefore manifest that power exercisable under section 35 (2) of the Act is confined to the time during the period of supersession proceedings. Unless the proceedings have started as indicated earlier !he Registrar cannot call in aid the power exercis able under section 35 (2) of the Act. The second question which has to be decided is whether. Registrar could appoint an administrator in the present case. The Registrar could not appoint an administrator. The reasons ·are these. The proceedings for supersession of the committee of managementi have not commenced. The proceedings can com mence only when the necessary step to commence it is taken. The interim suspension of the committee of management under section the Registrar 35(2) of the Act is when when in the opinion of the suspension of the committee of management during the period of proceedings is necessary in the interest of the society. As no proceedings have been set in motion in accordance with the pro, visions of the statute, the interim suspension of the committee of management is bad. An appointment of administrator is speci fically dealt with in sui>sectlons 3, 4, 5 and 6 of section 35 of the Act. The appointment of administrator is normally after ~persession of the committee of management. It is true that there 1s no specific provision for an appoin!ment of administrator during A B c D E )1 G H VEER.PAL v. REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES (Ray, /.) 423 A B c D the interim period. But section 35(2) of the Act st.ates Registrar may make such arrangement as he thinks proper for the management of the affilis of the society till the proceedings are completed. An appointment of administrator during the period is therefore not ruled out of the provisions of section 35(2) of the Act, but tlle prerequisite condition to the appointment of the interim administrator has not been fulfilled in the present case, because no proceedings for the supersession of the committee of management of the socie-ty have commenced. The administrator appointed by tlle Registrar withdrew delegation of the petitioner appellant Veerpal Singh to the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Cooperative Federation. Under Rule 86 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules 1968 a person who is a delegate of a cooperative society shall cease to be such delegate if he is withdrawn by the committee, administrator or adminis trators appointed by the Registrar under section 35 of the Act.. In the present case the appointment of tlle administrator is bad as indicated earlier. The act of the Registrar in withdrawing the dele gation of Veerpal Singh is also bad because of his infirmity to act as an administrator. For these reasons, the order dated 14 July, 1971 is set aside and quashed. The petition succeeds. The app~ar is also allowed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. G.C. Appeal allowed.