Civil Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2004 Date of decision : 28.04.2010 Sahauli Milk Producer Cooperative Society Ltd., Sahauli ....Petitioner V/s Special Secretary (Cooperation), Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Challenge in the instant petition is to orders dated 07.11.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 and revisional order dated 08.06.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby it was held that respondent No. 4 was entitled to join as Secretary of the petitioner- Society. Brief factual background of the case is that Jasbir Singh (respondent No. 4 herein) was appointed as Secretary in the petitioner- Society on 01.12.1997 and kept on working as such. Due to certain allegations of embezzlement of funds of the Society levelled against him, he was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 19.05.2000. A charge- sheet was issued to him but respondent No. 4 failed to file any reply. Consequently respondent No. 5 under his presidentship terminated the Civil Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2004 2 services of respondent No. 4 vide resolution dated 15.07.2000. On said date he was neither President of the Society nor he was authorized to call any meeting of the Society. Respondent No. 4 raised his grievance before Assistant Registrar, Jagraon who held an inquiry. After examining the record, the Assistant Registrar set-aside all the resolutions passed after 24.03.2000 by Managing Committee of petitioner-Society. Respondent No. 4, thereafter, preferred a petition on 23.10.2010 under Rule 45 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies, Rules 1963 and Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The said petition came up for hearing before Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Deputy Registrar directed the Managing Committee of the Society to allow the petitioner to work as Secretary of the Society. He, however, gave liberty to the Managing Committee to take action as per law in case any loss had been caused by respondent No. 4 to the Society. The petitioner-Society preferred a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies, Act 1961 against the said order. The revision petition was heard by Special Secretary Cooperation (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh, who after hearing counsel for the parties up- held the order passed by Deputy Registrar. Operative part of the order passed by the said authority reads thus:- “After careful perusal of the record on file and hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the inquiry report of the Assistant Registrar categorical holds that Sh. Amar Singh as President of the society was changed and he was not President at the relevant time when resolutions regarding termination of services of respondent No. 1 were passed. He Civil Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2004 3 could not call the meeting as he was not President. Furthermore, no rules were followed while terminating the service of respondent No. 1. No charge-sheet and no show cause notice was given and no inquiry was conducted as required under the rules. So the resolutions were void ab- initio. The orders passed by the Assistant Registrar for setting aside void resolutions and impugned orders of the Deputy Registrar are just and justifiable. These have been passed in the best interests of rule of law. The Administrator was competent to allow respondent No. 1 to join duty. Void resolutions are non-est in the eyes of law. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Society has preferred the present Civil Writ Petition before this court. Mr. Saggu, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of Rule 80 of the 1963 rules, the Assistant Registrar had no power to annul the resolution passed by Managing Committee of the Society after 24.03.2000. According to him, the resolution whereby respondent No. 4 was removed from the post was never challanged by him and, thus, the same is still operative. He further submits that Administrator was not competent to reinstate respondent No. 4 as Secretary of the petitioner-Society. The arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner is, however, refuted by learned counsel representing respondent No. 4. He has emphasized that in fact resolution removing respondent No. 4 from Secretary of the Society was void ab-initio as meeting of the Managing Committee was called by Amar Singh at a time when he had ceased to be President of the Society. According to him, the said resolution was not Civil Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2004 4 binding on respondent No. 4 and, thus, he was rightly directed to be reinstated on the post of Secretary. He has further submitted that there was no requirement on the part of respondent No. 4 to challenge resolution dated 15.07.2000 (Annexure-P-4) as the same was passed when Amar Singh was not President of the Society. In any case, the resolution passed by Society after 24.03.2000 were set-aside by the Assistant Registrar and, thus, the resolution in question (Annexure P-4) is also deemed to have been set-aside. According to learned counsel, the said decision of the Assistant Registrar was never challenged by the petitioner-Society. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that there is finding of fact by authorities below that meeting of the Managing Committee dated 15.07.2000 was presided over by Amar Singh despite the fact that he had ceased to be President of the Managing Committee. The resolution in question was totally unsustainable as the Managing Committee was not duly constituted on the relevant date. Both the authorities below have held that Amar Singh had ceased to be President of the Society by that time. It appears that no procedure was followed before decision terminating the services of respondent No. 4 was taken vide resolution dated 15.07.2000. It was simply mentioned that respondent No. 4 had failed to reply to the charges levelled against him and thus, it was resolved to dispense with his services. It is inexplicable how the said meeting could be held under the presidentship of Amar Singh, who is stated to have ceased to be President. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that as per 1963 rules, the Assistant Registrar could have annulled the resolution passed by the Societies does not impress Civil Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2004 5 this court. Rule 80 to which reference has been made is not attracted to facts of the case. The same relates to place and time of holding a meeting and thus not relevant. In any case, the decision taken by Assistant Registrar was never challenged by the Society. Thereafter, the petition preferred by respondent No. 4 under Rule 45 of 1963 rules was accepted by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana vide order dated 07.11.2003 (Annexure P-1) and later upheld by Special Secretary Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab vide impugned order dated 08.06.2004 (Annexure P-2). I find no legal infirmity with the impugned orders. There is thus, no case for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the said orders. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. April 28, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE