Sukhdev Singh vs Assistant Registrar and others

Ashok Bhan, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed by six members out of the total strength of the Nine, of the Nangal Kalan Cooperatve Agriculture Service Society Limited, Nangal Kalan, District Mansa(hereinafter referred to as ''the society'') for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 20th December, 1993, Annexure P2, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, placing the Society under suspension during the pendency of inquiry and appointing one Hans Raj Bansal, Inspector, Cooperative Society, Phaphar Bahri, as the Administrator of the Society.

Elections to the Society were held on 30th July,1993. From the pleadings, it is apparent that six members of the Society, who have filed the present writ petition are on one side and the other three members of the Society are on the other side. A meeting of the Society was held on 24th September, 1993 for election of the officebearers of the Society in which, as per allegations made in the petition, petitioner No. 1 was elected as its President and Petitioner No. 2 as its Vice President unanimously. This election was challenged by Mukhtiar Singh, one of the members of the Society belonging to the other group by filling a civil suit instead of an election petition. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code was filed seeking an adinterim injunction restraining the officebearers of the Society from holdings meeting secretly and illegally. Civil Court, vide its order dated 22nd September, 1993 (Copy Annexure P1) issued an interim direction restraining the officebearers of the Society from holding any meeting secretly and illegally in violation of the rules and regulations of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, without due service of the notice of the proposed meeting upon Mukhtiar Singh and other members of the Society, as required under the law.

Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa, interpreting this order to be that elected members of the Society cannot function as the civil Court had granted stay regarding their functioning, suspended the members of the society, vide order dated 20th December, 1993 Annexure P2. As a result thereof, the functioning of the Society came to a virtual stand still. Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Phaphar Bhai, on 17th November, 1993, reported that due to party friction in the Society, fertilizers were not being brought for disbursement amongst its members. Keeping in view the report of the Inspector, Coopeative Societies,Mansa, issued show cause notice to the members of the society to pass a resolution for bringing the fertilizers. During the pendency of this show cause notice the Society was ordered to be placed under suspension vide the impugned order dated 20th December, 1993, Annexure P2. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued. In the written statement filed, a preliminary objection was taken that against the impugned order Annexure P2, an appeal was competent. On merits, it was contended that the action taken by the Assistant Registrar, suspending the Society was in accordance with law. Motion Bench overruled the objection of the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition regarding alternative remedy of filling of an appeal and admitted the writ petition. As an interim measure, operation of the impugned order Annexure P2 was also kept in abeyance during the pendency of the writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the pleadings of the parties.

Since the admission Bench admitted the writ petition after noticing the plea regarding filing of appeal taken in the written statement, I proceed to decide this writ petition on merits without going into the desirability of directing the petitioners to avail their alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It shall not be appropriate at this stage to relegate the petitioners to their alternative remedy of filing the appeal.

It has rightly been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that till the officebearers are properly elected and allowed to perform their functions, the transactions involving financial matters cannot take place in the society. Petitioners claim that Committee Members have duly elected the officebearers regarding which there seems to some confusion with the three members of the Committee belonging to the other group as well as the officials of the department of Cooperative Societies challenging the same. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, (which includes all the officebearers) of the Society who had been elected earlier) states that the [petitioners are prepared to forego their right of election as officebearers in pursuance to the meeting held on 24th September, 1993 and are prepared to face fresh elections of the officebearers of the Society which may be conducted as per the rules and regulations. I find substance in this submission of the counsel for the petitioners. The Society has been placed under suspension only because the members of the Society could not order the purchase of the fertilizers for disbursement amongst its members. It could not have been done because the officebearers of the Society were not being allowed to function.

The impugned order, Annexure P2, placing the Society under suspension is quashed. A further direction is issued to the respondents and in particular to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa to make arrangements and if necessary, give appropriate directions to hold elections of the officebearers of the Committee after issuing notices to all the nine members in accordance with law. The elections of the Committee are directed to be completed within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.