Daya Chand and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the following circumstances. The post of the Manager of the Gohana Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited, Gohana (hereinafter to be referred to as the Society) was lying vacant in the month of April, 1966, when, on learning that the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Registrar) wanted to foist on the Society as Manager a person named Shri Ram Dia who was at the time working as Inspector of Co-operative Societies. Shri Daya Chand petitioner No. 1, the then Vice-Chairman of the Society, sent a telegram to the Registrar informing him that the proposed appointment of Shri Ram Id was not acceptable to the Society and making a request that the name of an Inspector of Co-operative Societies acceptable to the society be recommended. Through his letter dated 28-5-1966 (Annexure "A" to the petition), the Registrar passed on the information contained in the telegram to his Deputy Registrar at Rohtak.

Sometime later the Deputy Registrar learnt that the Society was contemplating the appointment of one Shri Rah Singh as its Manager. According to the Deputy Registrar, Shri Raj Singh was a man of doubtful antecedents and unsuitable for appointment as the Manager of a concern such as the Society was. On the 27th of May, 1966, therefore, he wrote a letter (Annexure "B" to the petition) informing the President of the Society of all the circumstances in which the appointment of Shri Raj Singh as Manager of the Society was considered undesirable and also stating that the Registrar''s Department would not approve of the proposed appointment of Shri Raj Singh on account of his past history. The advice so tendered by the Deputy Registrar, however, did not find favour with the concerned committee of the Society which, in their meeting held on the 5th of June, 1966, selected Shri Raj Singh for the post of the Society Manager.

This selection did not find favour with Shri Bhardwaj, respondent No. 5 who was one of the official nominees to the Committee and who recorded his note of dissent on the point. Apprehending that the Committee would implement its decision about the appointment of the Manager in spite of the said note of dissent, Shri Vijai Singh, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak, sent to the Society a communication (Annexure "C" to the petition) bringing out the following points:-

(a) When a difference of opinion arises between the nominated members of the Managing Committee of a Society in which shares have been subscribed by the Government and the other members thereof, the concerned resolution must be referred by the Committee to the Government as laid down in Section 26(4) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for its final decision which, under the provision of that section operates as if the same is a decision taken by the Committee.

(b) In view of the mandatory provision of Section 26 (4) ibid, the resolution of the Managing Committee dated the 5th of June, 1966, is compulsorily referable to the Government without whose decision it cannot be implemented.

(c) The matter should be referred to the Government immediately and if any action is taken in disregard of the provisions of Section 26 (4) ibid the concerned members of the Committee would be responsible for the consequences."

Communication appended as Annexures "A", "B" and "C" to the petition were impugned therein on various grounds but only the following two of them were urged before me at the hearing:

(1) The nomination of respondent No. 5 to the Managing Committee of the Society having been made on the 20th of May, 1966, i.e., a day after the notice containing the agenda for the meeting held on the 5th of June, 1966, was circulated, was illegal.

(2) Under by-law 30 of the By-laws governing the Society and framed under the Act, the Managing Committee of the Society could have as its members no more than three persons nominated by the Government including the Assistant Registrar. The nomination of respondent No. 5 to the Managing Committee of the Society raised the number not permitted by the said bye-law. The nomination was thus illegal and ineffective.

I do not find merit in either of the grounds above mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners who are the President and Vice-President of the Society, failed to bring to my notice any provision in the Act, the rules made thereunder or the by-laws governing the Society, according to which a nomination could not be made so as to be operative for a meeting, a notice of holding which is issued before the nomination; and I do not see any reason for upholding a contention to the contrary on any general principles. The only provision brought to my notice in this behalf is by-law 30 above mentioned which may be reproduced here with advantage:-

"30. The Managing Committee of the society shall be constituted in the following manner:-

(i) Assistant Registrar Ex-officio.

(ii) Three committee members to be elected by general meeting out of individual shareholders.

(iii) Three committee members to be elected by general body out of the representatives of societies.

(iv) Not more than two committee members to be co-opted by the Managing Committee. While co-opting such members, the Managing Committee may provide representation to agriculture or marketing experts.

(v) Not more than three committee members to be nominated by Government so long as the Government is a share-holder of the society."

Now this by-law does not say at all when a nomination under Clause (v) thereof is to be made. Apparently, when a meeting is held, the person who is clothed with the nomination immediately preceding it would have the right and also the duty to attend it. It is for the Government to see when it shall make a nomination and that power is not in any way inter-linked with any notice for any particular meeting of the Committee.

A bare perusal of the by-law makes it clear that the person to be nominated under Clause (v) thereof are exclusive of the Assistant Registrar is to be regarded as one of the nominees of the Government, then the clause does envisage no less than four nominations to be made by the Government. As it is, the Assistant Registrar is made a member of the Managing Committee by Clause (i) itself and he would be a member of the Committee by virtue of the provisions of the by-law and not by reason of any nomination made by the Government. Clause (v) on the other hand, declares specifically that three members shall be nominated to the Committee by the Government and such members need not be officials serving under the Government, although they usually are.

In this view of the matter no illegality attaches to the nomination by the Government of respondent No. 5 as a member of the Managing Committee of the Society, even though he was one of three so nominated, apart from the Assistant Registrar.

For the reasons stated, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/-.

Petition dismissed.