SCA/14132/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14132 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= DODAR GROUP SEWA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. & 9 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAVINDRA SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 10.MRS KANAN R SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 4, MS ARCHANA U AMIN for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 09/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/14132/2003 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is preferred for challenging the order for appointment of the Administrator and its confirmation thereof by the Higher Authority whereby, the Committee was superceded and in its place the Administrator was appointed. 2. It appears that when this Court considered the matter for the first time on 26.09.2003, following order was passed: “Having heard the Ld.advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioners and Mr.Vakharia, Ld.Sr.counsel with Mr.Tushar Mehta for Ms.Amin on behalf of respondents by caveat it primafacie appears that the committee came to be superseded initially by the Dist.Registrar on the ground that it was running into loss and it was not taking proper steps for recovery of amounts and also other aspects which are mentioned in the order. The contention raised by Mr.Shah that on the date of hearing the area was declared under curfew and therefore the petitioners could not putforward their case before the Dist.Registrar, in my primafacie view can not be accepted because no documentary evidence is produced before the lower authority nor before this court to support the said contention. Further, it appears that on merits the Addl.Registrar(Appeals) as well as the State Govt in revisional jurisdiction have examined the matter and have found that the society has continued to run into loss and as submitted by Mr.Vakharia during the course of hearing that the bank has to recover huge amount of Rs.80.50 lacs from the society and therefore the bank is appointed as administrator. 2. Mr.Shah submitted that fresh election has taken place on 23.4.03 and those who were in office at the relevant point of time when the first order came to be passed by the Dist.Registrar have ceased to hold the office and since new members have come in power the present order passed by the appellate authority and the State Govt confirming the order of the District Registrar would be rendered bad in law. In case of Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madras and others vs P.S.Rajgopal Naidu, Govindarajulu and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 902 considering the retirement of 1/3rd members of the Committee at para 9 the Apex Court has observed as under: "Normally, it would be expected that only that committee would be superseded whose functioning SCA/14132/2003 3/4 JUDGMENT has been found to be highly defective. The object of supersession apparently is to appoint a Special Officer or a managing committee in order to set the working of the society right. It is not difficult to envisage a situation where maladministration by a committee has so adversely affected the functioning of the society that it is essential in the interest of the society itself to give temporarily the control of its affairs to a neutral authority." Even on facts, when the matter is examined primafacie it appears that five members have been reelected at the said election and therefore it can be said that the majority of members even after the election found to have been not performing their duties properly or persistently making default and such would attract power under section 81 of the Act. There is also no dispute on the point that the society is running into losses. Mr.Shah made an attempt to submit that that after the show cause notice and after the first order of the District Registrar attempts are made by the Board to recover the money and to take steps against the members of the society who had to pay up the amount. In my primafacie view, it may change the ground of show cause notice, but when the society is running into huge losses and when the bank has also to recover huge amount with a view to have better administration and more particularly in view of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court at least present elected body should not be allowed to continue to function even if this court finds the question to be considered for the purpose of final hearing as to whether the reelection of all the members of the Managing Committee would wipe out the effect of show cause notice under section 81 or any order passed under section 81 of the Act 2. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to pass the following order: (i) Rule. (ii) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interim stay against the operation and implementation of the impugned orders is refused. (iii) However, it is clarified that the functioning of the administrator shall be subject to the orders which may be passed by this court at the time of final hearing.” The interim relief was refused. 3. Thereafter, the period of one year has expired long back and therefore, the order for SCA/14132/2003 4/4 JUDGMENT appointment of administrator has lived the life and the period for appointment of administrator is also over by afflux of time. No material is produced on record to show that the appointment of administrator has continued further. 4. Under these circumstances, the present petition has become infructuous. Disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy