N THE His}: OURT 0F? JUEmATURE AT BIL-ASPu CHHATIsbARii N0. 1623 oF‘ 2004 w. a Md Akb S/ 0 ohamme ar oad Modahapara, Ralp R ur e I Q R: () PETITIGNER‘ I. Rgistrar, Socxetles, } Agrlcultural RESPONDENT$ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR DIVISI NCH: N'BLE HR A K PK CJ & HON'BLE sH ix Awmofm. J WT RI PEITION T N.‘ O1 023 OF 2004 AND WRIT'PETITION ~NO.161 2 OF 2004 ORDER FOR cONSIDERATION HONBLE MR. JUSTIOE SATISH KUMAR AGNIHOTRI ’‘ ipot t for 15 L qune, 2005 s i : \ ' ON BE HO 5I ATNAI ~ m s H!GH COURT GF JUDICATURE cHHATT1SGARH: B!LASPUR {Bivisian Semh) CORAM : Hen’ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ & Hon-’me Shri S.K. Agnihafri, J. WR!T PETIT!ON N0. 1023 OF 2004 Mohammad Akbar Versus Agt'icuitprai Registrar UnNersity Co-operative Cémpus, Sncieties iébhanéiTRaipur f‘hhattisgarh and 'others. AND WRIT PETlTlcN NO.1 612 OF 2004 Kanwal Singh Thakur Versus Registrar, CEO-operative Societies, Chhaitisgarh, Agricuiturai University Campus, Labhandi, Raipu: and others. Present : ‘ Mr. Manindra Shrivastava. Sr. Advecate with Ms. $mitha Ghai, learned counsel far the petitioner. Mr. Ravish AgrawaL iearned Advucate General for the State of Chha‘r‘risgarh/respondent No.1. Mr. S.C. Verma learned ceunsel ceunsel for respondent No.2. Mr R N Singh & Mr P Diwakar Sr Advocates with Mr Sanjair K Agrawal leerned counsel for respondents 3, 4, 5 8-. 6. a 'Mr. Dinesh Tiwarl learned counsel for respondent No.7. e 0 R D ER (Passed on 15"‘bf June 2005) The following Grder of the Court was passed by AK. Patnaik, CJ: !n these two writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of india, the order dated 02/04/2004 passed by the Registrar, tie-operative )Ix $ocieties, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Review Case No.80~O1/20D4 has been chauenged 2. The facts re!evant for fhe disposal of these two writ petitions biiefiy are that the District Cc-operative Central Bank, Raipur/respondent No.2 (fer short “the Co-cperative Bank”) is a Co-operative Society registered under the Madhye Pradesh Co-operative Secieties Act, 1960 which has renamed after its adaptation to the State of Chhattisgarh as the Chhattisgarh Con operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). Respondents 2 to 6 who are delegates of their respective primary societies were elected as Directors of the Board of the Co-operetive Bankf Respondents 3 and 4 were also the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Co-operative Bank. Respondents 3, 4, 5 and e were also members of the Staff Sub Committee of the Co-operative Bank. There were serious allegations irregular appointments, promotions and other matters concerning the employees of the Co~operative Bank and after an endJirv into the allegations, the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Raiour b; order dated 03/07/1 999 directed the Board of Directors of the Co—operatlve Bank to take action for removal of respondents 3 to 6 from the Staff SJb oommittee and from the post of Directors. 3.. The said order date d03/02/1999 of the Joint Registrar was challenged in Revision No.394 of 1999 by the Staff Sub Committee as well as respondent No.3 in the name of the Co-operative Bank before Madhya Pradesh State C-o-operative Tribunal (for short the Tn'bunal’). By order dated 03/01/2000 the Tribunal held that there was no illegality or intirmity in the said order dated 03!02/1999 of the Joint Registrar, Co—operative' Societies'and dismissed the revision with the direction that the Joint Registrar shail forward a copy of the complaint and the copy of the report of the enquiry to the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Bank and the Board of Directors will take action under Section 53(1)(b) of the Act within thirty days from the receipt of the copy of the enquiry report and the copy of the complaint But the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Bank bv majority dsolsion tool! the mew that the anpomtments and the promotions were made in accordance with law and there was no irregularity in the said appointments and promotions 4. The petitioners who did not support the decision by the majority filed an appiication 'before the Joint Registrar. C-o-operative Societies to take appropriate action against respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the Joint Registrar issued a show cause notice dated 22/03/2000 to respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6. > a The said show cause netice dated 22/03/2000 was challenged before the Tribuna! in Revision Case No.93 9f 1999 and by order dated 04/04/2000 the Tribune! quashed the show cause notice dated 22/03/2000 issued by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and directed that a fresh meeting of the Committee of the Ce-operative Bank be convened according to law Which shalt be presided ever by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur and the respendents 3 to 6 shall be afforded full apportunity of hearing in such a meeting as required under Section 53-B(1) of the Act and in such meeting the charges against them shall be considered. Pursuant to the said order dated 0404/2000 the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Bank in a meeting heid on 08/05/2000 presided by the Deputy Registrar, Co—operative Societies, Raipur appears to have considered the charges and found the respondents No.3 to 6 as not guiity. 5. The Joint Registrar then issued another show cause notice dated 21/03/2001 under Section 53-B(2) of the Act. The said show cause notice dated 21/03/2001 was chaltenged by respondents 3 to 6 before the Tribunal in four revision~petitions namely Revision Nos.1 76/2001, 177/2001, 226/2001 and 227/2001 and by order dated 28/11/2001 thevTribunai dismissed the revision petitions with the observation that all the defences as are available to respondents 3,4,5 and 6 could be taken by them before the Joint Registrar in their repiy and the Joint Registrar will afford an opportunity to them and pass orders. After iapse of about 11 months, respondent No.3 then tiled a writ petition on 11/1 0/2002 numbered as Writ Petition No.2107 of 2002 chalienging the said order dated 28/11/2001 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the revision Nos.1 76 of 2001, 177 of 2001 , 226 of 2001 and 227 of 2001. 6. When the said Writ Petition No.2107 of 2002 was pending, the Joint Registrar passed orders on 22-10-2002 in exercise of power vested in her by the Registrar ‘under Sub-section (2) of Section 53-3 of the Act, removing the respondent No.3 from the Office ofttile Chairman as also the Director of the Co—operative‘ Bank and aiso disqualified respondent No.3 from holding any post in the Co-operative Bank for a period of three years after nnding the respondent No.3 guilty of the charges of illega! appointments and promotions. ln the said order dated 22-1 0-2002, however, the Joint Registrar observed that she was not inciined to impose such rigorous punishment on respondents 4,5 and 6 and instead warned them to work with full application of mind and in accordance with law and the rules and directions. ?. Thereafter, one Bisela! Sahu med a petition under Section SO-A cf the Act before the Registrar, Co-operative Sccieties, against enly the portion of the crder dated 22/10/2002 cf the Joint Registrar, Ce—operative Societies by which she did not impose any punishment on respondents 4, 5 and 6 and in his order dated 25.11 1/2002 the Registrar, Co—operative Societies heid that although the Joint Registrar found respondents 3 to 6 equaiiy guiity of the charges she punished respondent No. 3 oniy. Accordingly, by the said order dated 25-1 1~2002, the Registrar removed aiso respondents 4, 5 and 6 from the post of Vice President and Directors of the Co—operative Bank and disquaiit’red them from hoiding any post in the Co-operative Bank for a period of three years from the date of the orders. 8. Against the said order dated 25/11/2002 respondents 4,5 and 6 tiled writ petition Nos. 2162 of 2002, 2?31 of 2002 and 2147 of 2002 respectivety before this Court. During the pendency of the Writ petitions the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, registered a Review case No. 80-01/2004 and issued notice dated 01/04/2004 for sud mntu review of the order dated 22/10/2002 hassed by the Joint Reglstrar Cn-operatrve Socretr--, removing respondent No.3 as Chairman and Director of the Co-operatrve Bank. The said notice was served on the Chief Executive Qfdcer of the Co-operative Bank but no notice was served on the petitioner. The review case was nxed for hearing to 02/04/2004 at 2.00 p.m. and orders were passed by the Registrar on 02/04/2004 setting aside the order dated 22/1 0/2002 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, removing respondent No.3 from the posts of Chairman and Director of the Co-operative Bank restoring the position as existing before 22/1 0/2002. 9. The aforesaid order da ed 02/04/2004 passed by the Registrar Pro-operative Qocietres effected the petitioners because after remova' of respondent No.3 from the post of the Chairman and Director of the Co- operative Bank, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1023 of 2004 had been eiected as the Chairman of the Co-operative Bank in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Co operative Bank held on 07/04/2004 and similarly after the remova! of respondent No4 as the Vice t‘harrman of the Co-operatrve Bank, the petitioner in Writ Petition No 1612 of 2004 had bee eiected as one of the Vice Chairmen of the oo-operative Bank in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Bank held on 07/04/2004. Aggrieved the two petitioners have thus tiled these writ petitioners praying for quashing the 5 aforesaid crder dated 02/04/2004 as wel! as the entire proceedings in Review Case Ne.80—01 of 2004 befere the Registrar, Co-cperative societies leading to the said erder dated 02/04/2004 (hereinafter referrw to as “the impugnw order’). 10. At the hearing Mr. Manindre Shrivastave teamed counsei fer the g petiticner submitted that when the orders dated 22/10/2002 and 25/11/2002 were passed, no power of review was vested with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the power of review was vested in the Registrar, Co-operative Societies oniy in the year 2003 under Sedion 80 of the Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2003 but by 2003 when the said Amendment Act came into force the orders dated 22-1 0-2002 and 25-11-2002 had become final. He submitted that the said Section 80 conferring power of review on the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, cannot retrospectively appiy to the orders of the Registrar which have become tinat and can only appiy to the orders of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed after the said Section 80 of the Act was introduced in the, year 2003. ln support of this submission he reiied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavia! Jethaia! Shah Vs. Mohaniai Bhegwandas and another reported in AIR 1968 SQ 1336 and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Govind Prasad Rameshwar Nath Agarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 1968 MPL-J 704 in which it has been held that orders which had become final cannot be affected by a subsequent amendment in the iaw unless there is a positive indication in the amending Act for giving retrospective operation to the amendment. He next submitted that the Second Proviso to Section 80 of the Act conferring power of review on the Registrar, CO-operative Societies, provided that no order wili be varied amended or revised in the review uniess notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and such interested parties have been heard. But the two petitioners who had been eiected as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the (Do-operative Bank and were interested parties, were not served with any notice to appear and were not heard before the impugned orderblated 02/04/2004. He further submitted that the First Proviso to Section 60 of the Act would show that the power of the Registrar under Section 80 of the Act is iimited to correcting mistakes and errors in his order which are apparent on the face of the record and does not extendto deciding issues which had already been decided by the Tribunal in a revision. He submitted that a reading of the order dated 02/04/2004 of the Registrar of the Co—operative Societies would show that the ground for reviewing the eariier order dated 25/11/2002 for remove! of 6 respendent No.3 is that since the Baard of Directors of the Co-operative Bank in the meeting he!d on 08/05/2009 under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Registrar, C—e-operative Secieties, Raipur had aiready considered the charges against respondents 3 to 6 and had acquitted them and ciosed the case against them, there was he propriety in the Joint Registrar issuing yet another notice under Section 53-8 (2) of the Act in passing the tinai order pursuant to the said shew cause notice but this issue had aiready been decided against respondents 3 to 6 by the Tribune! in the order dated 28/1 1/2001, dismissing the revision Nos.176/2001, 1.7?/2001, 226/2001 and 227/2001 tiied by reseondents 3 to E against the show cause notice dated 21/03/2001 issued by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative $ocieties, Raipur. 11. Mr. Ravish Agrawai, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh/respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that $ection 77. (16) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provides that an order in appeal, revision tor review passed under the Act by the Tribunal shall be final and conciusive, and thus the order dated 22/10/2002 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies removing respondent No.3 from the offrce of the Chairman as also the Director of the Co-operative Bank and disqualifying hirn from holding any post in the Co—operative Bank for a period of three years cannot be held to be tinal. He further argued that the said order dated 22/10/2002 passed by the Joint Registrar, Clo-operative Societies was subject to chalienge before the Tribunai under Section 7.7 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, but under Section 7470f the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 the jurisdiction of the Tribune! was to continue for a period of two years w.e.f. 01/11/2000 i.e. upto 01/11/2002 and for this reason the order dated 22/10/2002 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, could not be challenged before the Tribunal even within the period of limitation of thirty days Which expired on 22/1 1/2002. He vehemently argued that the contention of Mr. Shrivastava that the order passed by the Joint Registrar or the Registrar of the Co—operative Societies had become final and could not be reviewed by the Registrar by the impugned order dated 02/04/2004 is, therefore, without any merit. He submitted that Section 80 was brought to the Act by the Amendment Act of 2003 and at the time the impugned order dated 02/04/2004 was passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 80 of the Act, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had the power to review under the said Section 80 of the Act and there is nothing in the Act which expressly or impliedly provides that the Registrar, Ce-opemtive Societies could not exercise the power of review in respect of an order which had been passed priar to the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2003. In suppon of this submission, he reiied on the decision of the $upreme Court in B.P. Andra Vs. Superintendent, Centre! Jail, Tihar reported in AIR 19?5 SG 1‘54. 12. Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsei for respondent No.2, submitted that respondent No.2/ Co-operative Bank had tiled its return after receiving notice in the review case from the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. 13. Mr. RN. Singh learned counsel appearing for respondents 3., 4, 5 & 6 reiterated the submission of Mr. Ravish Agrawai, teamed Advocate Genera! that the orders 22/10/2002 and 25f‘i1/2002 couid be chaiienged before the Tribunai under Section 7.7 of the Act and therefore were not tinai. He further argued that the said orders couid not be chaiienged before the Tribunai, as the Tribunai was not avaiiabie by virtue of $ection 74 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act. 2000. He submitted that the Registrar, Co—operative Societies, therefore, could review the said orders in exercise of his power under Section 80 of the Act as introduced by the Amendment Act of 2003. in reply to the contention of Mr. Shrivastava that no notice had been given to the petitioners and no hearing had been granted to them in terms of the Second Proviso to $ection 80 of the Act before the impugned order dated 02!04/2004 was passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mr. Singh submitted that under the Rules only notice was required to be given to the parties in the case in which the original order sought to be reviewed was passed and such a notice was served on the parties to the case in which the order dated 25/1 112002 was passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as would be evident from the copy of the notice annexed to the writ petition as Annexure—P/19. He submitted that, in fact, in response to the said notice, the Chief Executive Ofhcer of the Co-operative Bank filed the obtections/return and the contention of Mr. Shrivastava that the provisions‘of Second Proviso to Section 80 of the Act had not been compliedwith {sa therefore not correct. He further submitted that the grounds on which the impugned order dated 02/04/2004 has been passed by the Registrar, C-o-operative Societies, is within the parameters of the power of review as contained in Section 80 of the Act and the submission of Mr. Shrivastava that the Registrar had exceeded his power of review as provided in Section 80 of the Act is misconceived. 8 g3 1.4. The first question to be decided in these writ petitions is whether the Registrar, Ce-operative Societies, could have invoked the provisions of Section 80 brought into the Act in the year 2003 by the Amendment Act of 2003 to review erders that were passed prior to the intreduction of $ection 80 by the Amendment Act of 2003. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Chhattisgarh Clo-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2003 by which the said Section 80 was introduced in the Act cieariy provides that the aforesaid Amendment Act of 2003 was to come into force from the date of its pubiication in the official Gazette. The said Amendment Act of 2003 was pubiished in the ofdciai Gazette on 9‘“ of September, 2003. Hence, Section 80, which contort-ed a power of review on the Registrar, came into force w.e.f. 9‘“ of September, 2003. Th- said Section 50 reads as foiiows: “80. Review.- The State Government or Registrar may, on its/his own motion, or on the application of any party interested, review its/his own order in any case and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks just; Provided that, no such application made by the party interested shall be entertained, nor such a case be taken suo-motu, ' uniess the State Government or Registrar is satisfied that there has been the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diiigence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or that there has been mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or there is any other sumcient reason; Provided that no such order shall be varied, amended or revised, unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and such interested parties have been heard: Provided further that application for review of any order, by the parties interested shall not be entertained, unless the application is fried within ninety days from the passing of the order.” _ at Thus, ..y the afo.esaid Section 80, the Registrar, Co—operative Societies, has been given the power to review his own order in any case as he thinks fit either on his own motion or on the application of any party interested and the Third Proviso to section 80 states that the appiication for review of any order by the parties interested shat! not be entertained, unless the application is tiled within 90 days from the passing of the orders, but there is no iimitation provided in Section 80 of the Act with regard to the time within which the e .1 Registrar, Co—eperative Societies may review any order passed by him on his own moticn. Thus, after 9‘“ 0f September, 2003, the Registrar, Co—cperative Societies, in exercise of his said power under -Section 80 brcught in by the Amending Act of 2003, couid review any order passed by him on his own motion except‘an order which had become finai.‘ in this case the order dated 22/1 0/2002 passed by the Joint Registrar and the order dated 25/11/2002 passed by the Registrar could not be said to be hnai for two reasons; firstly, because the said orders were subject to chaiienge before the Tribunal and section 77 (16) expressiy stated that it is the order passed by the Tribunal that would be finai; secondly, because in fact, the orders dated 22/10/2002 and 25/11/2002 were under chattenge before the High Court in WP. Nos.2107 of 2002, 2162 éT 2003, 2731 of 2002 and 2147 of 2002 filed by respondents No.3 to 6. The decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavla! Jethalal Shah(Supra) and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rameshwar Math Agrawal (Supra) in which the concerned orders had become final do not apply to the facts of this case. The first submission of Mr. Shrivastava that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies could not invoke Section 60 of the Act introduced by the Amendment Act of 2003 to review the order dated 25.1 1 .2002, therefore, has no merit. 15. The next question, which arises for decision in these writ petitions, is whether the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, exceeded his power of review under Section 80 of the Act in deciding afresh an issue which was decided by the Tribunal. in the present case, the impugned order dated 02/04/2004 has been passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, reviewing the orders dated 22/1 0/2002 on the ground that on 08/05/2000 the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Bank under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Registrar, Co—operative Societies, Raipur had considered the charges described in the show cause notice and had finally decided to acquit respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the charges and hence the Joint Registrar should not have issued another show cause notice urMer Section 533(2) and passed the final order dated 22/10/2002. The relevant paragraphs from the Engiish translation of the said impugned order dated 02/04/2004 of the Registrar, Co—operative Societies in Hindi are quoted herein belowf “The documents available in this regard are perused that the meeting of Board of Directors of Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank. Maryadit Raipur which held on 08.05.2000 under the chairmanship of Deputy Registrar Ctr-operative Societies, Raipur in pursuance of 10 Order dated 04.04.2000 of Hon'ble CEO-operative Tribunal in Revision Case No.93/99, therein considering ail the charges, the Board of Directors of Bank, acquitted Shri Raoheshyam Sharma, Deputy Chairman, Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Member Shri Dharmdas Mahilang and member Shri Bhuvneshwar Yadu with majority from the charges in the notice issued by the Joint Registrar, Raipur and decided to file the case. When Board of Directors of Bank after considering charges described in the show cause notice hnaiiy decided to acquit from charges then on that basis oniy! the case should have been oiosed. Since the Board of Directors, conducted the procedure oompieteiy in accordance with order of the Hon'ote Cooperative Tribunal and as per the notice by Joint Registrar under Section 53 B/KhmJ therefore, there was no propriety of next notice under section 53 B/Kh (2) and final order O4 of the base of the Act. Holding Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Shri Dharamdas Mahilang, Shri Bhuneshwar Yadu} non-applicants, Joint Registrar, in his final order dated 22-10-2002, did not punish them, but in revision case no, 80—A® 2002 vide order dated 25-11-2002 the then ‘ Registrar ordered to punish acquitted persons According to the principle of natural justice the persons who are firstly acquittai by any court cannot be held guilty and punished in