Thakur Dass Bhardwaj and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.—Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Respondents'' counsel waives notice. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. The petition takes exception to Annexure PK (page 108), which is order dated 22.2.2013, passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 3 of 2013, Annexure PN (page 113), communication dated 14.3.2013 issued by respondent No. 1 to petitioner No. 1, advising the petitioners to appear before respondent No. 2 to present the Review Petition filed by them before respondent No. 2-Registrar, Cooperative Societies; Annexure PO (pages 114-121), which is order dated 27.5.2013, passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioners have further prayed to uphold Annexure PE (pages 63-67), detailed final report and decision dated 25.2.2013 submitted by respondent No. 3 holding that the general body meeting convened on 19.7.2009 of proforma respondent No. 7-Society was illegal and nonest in the eyes of law. The petitioners are also praying for consequential relief that the order dated 20.2.2013 Annexure PF (page 68), passed by respondent No. 2 be implemented with all consequential effects flowing therefrom.

Briefly stated, the general body meeting was convened on 19.7.2009. The decision taken in that meeting was challenged by some of the Members of the Society before the Registrar, including the petitioners before this Court. The Registrar, in turn, directed to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made by the said Members. The inquiry was ordered to be conducted by Joint Registrar, who in turn, submitted interim report on 9.6.2011. The Joint Registrar then submitted final report on 25.2.2012 finding that the meeting was not conducted properly and the decision taken therein was illegal and not binding on the Members. The report so submitted by the Joint Registrar was accepted by the Registrar on 20.2.2013. However, two Members of the respondent-Society (private contesting respondents) filed Review/Revision before the Registrar. At the same time, they filed appeal before the Principal Secretary, on which, the Principal Secretary directed the Registrar to conduct fresh inquiry vide order dated 22.2.2013.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the said order was passed by the Principal Secretary without giving notice to the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed Review Petition before the Principal Secretary. The Principal Secretary vide letter dated 14.3.2013, advised the petitioners to present the said Review Petition before the Registrar. The grievance of the petitioners is that the approach of the Principal Secretary was completely untenable and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Nevertheless, it is noticed that the Registrar proceeded with the inquiry pursuant to the purported remand order passed by the Principal Secretary on 22.2.2013 and decided the appeal and remanded Review/Revision Petition. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners, whose review was allegedly disposed of in terms of communication dated 14.3.2013, Annexure PN, were given notice by the Registrar, much less heard before passing the final order dated 27.5.2013. Notably, as mentioned earlier, the petitioners had made grievance about the validity of the general body resolution, on the basis of which inquiry was ordered and the matter proceeded further. In that sense, the Registrar could not have decided the matter without giving notice to all concerned and including the petitioner before this Court. Indeed, in the order Annexure PO, it appears that petitioner No. 5 before this Court was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the proceedings before the Registrar, in which the impugned order dated 27.5.2013 came to be passed. The order sheet also records that respondent No. 4/petitioner No. 5 herein, was represented by Sh. K.K. Kaushal, Advocate, before the Registrar. The fact remains that there is nothing on record to indicate that atleast in terms of order dated 14.3.2013, passed by the Principal Secretary, the Registrar issued notice to the other petitioners before this Court, in particular, petitioners No. 1 to 4, 6 & 7, before proceeding with the hearing of the remanded proceedings. This observation is made by us on the assumption that the order of the Principal Secretary remanding the proceedings ex-parte, without giving notice to the petitioners, be ignored for the time being. Suffice it to observe that the Registrar did not give notice to the petitioners No. 1 to 4, 6 & 7, though the original proceeding before the Registrar was commenced on the basis of complaint filed by these petitioners as well.

For the nature of order we propose to pass, we are not examining the correctness of the decision of the Principal Secretary, who entertained the appeal proceeding in spite of the fact that the contesting private respondents had invoked the remedy of Review before the Registrar and which was pending and more so, decided the appeal preferred by the private respondents, without giving notice to the petitioners before this Court, at whose instance, the Registrar had passed order on 20.2.2013. Similarly, we need not dilate on the validity of the communication dated 14.3.2013, Annexure PN, passed on the Review Petition filed by the petitioners before the Principal Secretary, except to observe that this communication is dated 14.3.2013 and calls upon the petitioners to present the Review Petition before the Registrar who was to hear the matter on 15.3.2013. No record has been produced before us that this communication was duly served on the petitioners before 15.3.2013, much less well in advance, before the Registrar proceeded with the hearing of the remanded case. Notably, the communication dated 14.3.2013, Annexure PN directs the Registrar to give notice to the petitioners so as to give them opportunity to be heard before taking any final decision, which direction obviously has not been complied with by the Registrar.

Considering the several irregularities and the acts of commission and omission by both the Principal Secretary and Registrar, who have decided the matter in breach of principles of natural justice, without elaborating further, we quash and set aside the order passed by the Registrar dated 27.5.2013 and relegate the parties before the Registrar to consider the entire controversy afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. The Registrar shall decide the said proceedings un-influenced by the observations made in the decision dated 27.5.2013 or for that matter, the opinion recorded by the Principal Secretary in the impugned communication/orders. All questions will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. The private respondents as well as the petitioners through counsel undertake to appear before the Registrar on 10.7.2013 at 11: 00 AM in his office. The Registrar will be free to proceed with the hearing of the case on that date and after giving fair opportunity to all concerned, decide the matter in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Registrar, in the meantime, should take steps to issue notice to other Members, who had filed complaint, at whose instance the inquiry was commenced, to obviate grievance to be made by those Members at a later point of time. That be done well in advance before the hearing would commence on 10.7.2013. The Registrar shall take steps to serve the concerned Members by appropriate mode of service, as per rules. The petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.