Civil Writ Petition No.15171 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 27.1.2011 Jagmeet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Jagdeep Bains Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.T.P.S.Tung, Advocate for respondent No.3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioners were the elected members of The Bhutal Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (respondent No.4) (for brevity “the Cooperative Society”), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The Assistant Registrar (respondent No.3) reported that the petitioners -members of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Society, have illegally passed the resolution dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P1), without circulating the agenda or convening any proper meeting. So much so, the proceedings of the meeting were not entered in the regular book of the Society and started a new proceeding book. It was also reported that an amount of Rs.80,000/- as principal plus Rs.1,23,877/- as interest as on 31.3.2009 was recoverable and thus the Managing Committee is defaulter of the amount. Civil Writ Petition No.15171 of 2009 2 2. Taking cognizance of the report of the AR, a show cause notice dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure R4/1) was issued to the petitioners by Deputy Registrar, but they did not file any reply to it. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No.2), exercising the powers of Registrar, ceased the memberships of the petitioners, by virtue of impugned order dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure P2). 3. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that due to party faction amongst the members, in order to help the rival faction of the Managing Committee and under the political pressure of Prem Singh Chandu Majra (respondent No.5), their memberships have been illegally ceased. The petitioners claimed that the impugned order was passed against them without issuing any notice, affording any opportunity of being heard and against the statutory rules. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, petitioners sought quashment of the impugned order (Annexure P2), in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners. Contesting respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 have filed their respective separate written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition and locus standi of the petitioners as they have not availed the remedy of filing appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order. On merits, according to the contesting respondents that the petitioners have themselves passed the resolution dated 10.3.2009(Annexure P1) without circulating the agenda or convening any proper meeting. Thus, they have exceeded their jurisdiction. The proceedings of the meeting were also not entered in the regular book of the Society and started a new proceeding book, that too, during the period when the election code of conduct was in force. They have also appointed one Jagtar Singh as Salesman, vide resolution dated 30.1.2009. In all, the Civil Writ Petition No.15171 of 2009 3 contesting respondents claimed that the impugned order was passed on the basis of evidence/material on record and in accordance with law after issuing a proper show cause notice to the petitioners. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 7. However, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that since no prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, so, the impugned order is against the statutory rules and principles of natural justice, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Randhir Singh and others v. Additional Registrar (Credit) and others 1992 PLJ 38 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that the notice given to President for removal of Managing Committee is not sufficient and it was required to be given to the members also. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the present controversy. 8. As is evident from the record that notice (Annexures R4/1 and R5/1) was issued, calling upon the petitioners to give reply in this regard within 15 days of its receipt. It was specifically mentioned in it that in case the reply is not given on time or being unsatisfactory, they shall be ceased as members of the Managing Committee. Despite issuance of show cause notice, the petitioners neither filed any reply nor appeared before the competent authority. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the impugned order (Annexure P2) is bad for want of show cause notice, as urged on their behalf. 9. Not only that, Annexure P1 is the copy of resolution dated 10.3.2009, by means of which, the petitioners have illegally reinstated Jagtar Singh Ex- Civil Writ Petition No.15171 of 2009 4 salesman/employee of the Society, without circulating any agenda or convening any proper meeting and without informing the members. So much so, they have not entered the proceedings of the meeting in the regular book of the society but were stated to have initiated new proceeding book in order to hide their activities. 10. Sequelly, the bare perusal of the certificate (Annexures R4/2 and R5/2) would reveal that petitioner Jagmeet Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, account No.2/76 is defaulter of the loan of N.F.S. and he did not deposit any instalment in the bank. An amount of Rs.80,000/- as principal and Rs.1,23,877/- as interest till 31.3.2009 is outstanding against him. Meaning thereby, he is defaulter and no effective steps were taken by the petitioners to recover the indicated amount. 11. The next submission of learned counsel that the Registrar did not have the power to remove the petitioners, except on the grounds mentioned in Rule 26 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules”), is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Section 27 of the Act postulates that “if, in the opinion of the Registrar, a committee or any member of a committee persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it or him by this Act or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, or makes default in the implementation of production or development programmes undertaken by the co-operative society, the Registrar may, after giving the committee or the member as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity to state its or his objections, if any, by order in writing, remove committee, and appoint a Government servant as an administrator, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order and remove the member and get the vacancy filled up for the remaining period of the outgoing member, according to the provisions of this Act and rules and bye-laws made thereunder. Therefore, the contrary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Registrar did not have the power to remove the petitioners, Civil Writ Petition No.15171 of 2009 5 cannot be sustained in this regard. 12. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The Deputy Registrar, exercising the powers of Registrar, has ceased the memberships of the petitioners, by way of impugned order (Annexure P2), the operative part of which is as under:- “At the end Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Moonak has recommended the cessation of above mentioned five committee members under Rule 80 and Rule 26 A of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 besides this Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lehra vide his letter No.143/C.A. Dated 24.08.09 has directed that he received a complaint from the resident of village Bhutal and members of the society that on 10.3.09 Sh.Natha Singh, Vice President, Sh.Jagmeet Singh, Sh.Darbara Singh and Sh.Jagraj Singh and Sh.Kurra Singh had appointed Sh.Jagtar Singh S/o Nand Singh as Salesman and custodian of fertilizer. This application has been enquired into and during enquiry it has been found that these committee members by misusing their powers passed the resolution dated 10.3.09 by passing an illegal resolution in the proceeding book and have violated the election code. In this regard these committee Members have been asked to submit their stand but they have not submitted any reply within the stipulated period. At the end Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lehra has also written for taking action against these committee members under Rule 80 and Rule 26 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963. Accordingly, keeping in view the report of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Moonak above mentioned committee members were issued show cause notice vide this office letter No.DR/RK/3579-83 dated 25.8.09 but no reply has been received from them in this office till today. In view of above committee members have wrongly exercised their powers by holding meeting on 10.3.09 and one committee member is defaulter of PADB Lehra Gagga, therefore, these committee members have become disqualified from the Managing Committee Members, therefore, I R.P.Kanday, Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sangrur (exercising the powers of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh) on the recommendation of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Moonak and report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lehra cease Sh.Natha Singh Vice President, Sh.Jagmeet Singh, Committee Member, Sh.Darbara Civil Writ Petition No.15171 of 2009 6 Singh Committee Member, Sh.Jagraj Singh Committee Member, Sh.Kurra Singh Committee Member The Bhutal Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Bhutal Kalan under Rule 80 & 26 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 from the membership of the Managing Committee of the society.” 13. In this manner, the Registrar has recorded the valid reasons, taken into consideration, analyzed the cogent material on record in the right perspective and passed the impugned order (Annexure P2) after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners. Such well-reasoned findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 27.1.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No