'•s'. '3St ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILAS_PUR CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J & H^n'ble SJiri Radhe Shvam Sharnia, J Writ Appeal No. 560 of 2010 Bal Ashram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ORDER For consideration p Sd/- , fl SunilKumarSinhai K dge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA y e Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Post for Order: C/09/2011 Sd/- JOdge 5~ /09/2011 ^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha,.J & Hon'ble Sh^ri Radhe Shyam Sharnia, J WritAppeal No. 560 of 2010 APPELLANTS/ 1 Petitioners RESPONDENTS 1 2. 3. 4. Bal Ashram, A society registered and incorporated under Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, having registered office at Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Represented through the Secretary, Shantilal Parakh, Son of Late M.L. Parakh, Resident of Kutchery Chowk, Bal Ashram Campus, Raipur (C.G.). Shantilal Parakh, S/o Late M.L. Parakh, Resident of Kutchery Chowk, Bal Ashram Carnpus, Raipur (C.G.). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Firms and Socities & Commerce, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.). Mr. K.K. Baxy, Dy. Collector and administrator appointed for Bal Ashram, Raipur (C.G.). Registrar, Firms & Society, 0-5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G ). The Collector, Raipur (C.G.). WritAppeal under Section 2(11 ofthe Chhattisgarh Hicih CoiyJ (Appeal to DivisjorLBench) Act, 2006 Appearance: Mr.Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advoeate General for respondents 1, 3 & 4. Mr. R.K. Kesharwani & Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocates for the interveners. Writ Apceal No. 560 of 2010 ^•)- ORDER (06.09.2011) Following order of the Court was delivered by Synil Kymar SmhaLJ. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4 of December, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4882/2010 by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Appellant No.1 is a registered society, incorporaled under M.P. (C.G.) Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. After its supersession on 15.05.2006, Collector Raipur was appointed as Administrator, who joinecl on 17.05.2006. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was appointed Administrator on 14.05.2008. Earlier, two writ petitions namely W.P. (C) No 6290/2008 (Gokul Das Daga Vs State of C.G. & Others) and W.P. (C) No. 3133/2009 (Bal Ashram & Another Vs State o< Chhattisgarh & Others)were filed and were disposed of by a common order dated 22 of July, 2010. The operative part of the common order contained in paras 4 & 5 read as unde:- "4. In view of the above, it is directed that the new administrator or the Registrar himself may ensiire holding of elections as early as possible on the basis o< members enrolled earlier prior to the appointment of new administrator, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid direction and observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of." The subsequent writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4882/2010 was filed by the appellants on the ground that the said Writ ApoealNo. 560 of 2010 ^ .authorities incorporated new members subsequent to Ihe order of supersession and appointment of administrator, i.o 15.05.2006 and they wanted to convene the election on the basis of new membership list, which was not in accordance with law and was also in violation of order dated 22.07.2010 passed in above writ petitions. At the time of hearing of W.P.(C) No. 4882/2010, learned counsel for the respondenls submitted that they are complying with the order dated 22.07.2010 in its letter and spirit for holding election on the basis of members enrolled earlier prior to the appointment of new administrator. On the said statement made by the counset for the respondents, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition reserving the liberty to the appellants to take recourse to proper forum, if the order dated 22.07.2010 passed in Gokul Das Daga (Supra) and other connected matter is not complied with in its letter and spirit. (3) Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that the authorities of the State were tryinci to hold theelection on the basis of new members enrolled after the supersession; sufficient material was brought to the notice of the Single Judge in this regard; therefore, the learned Single Judge, ought to have clarified in the order the legal position and would have directed in express words that the election would be convened on the basis of members who were enrolled on the date of supersession of the society and not on the basis of membors enrolled thereafter. Mr. Bhaduri submitted that the Registrar/Administrator cannot enroll new members, therefore, the action relating to enrollment of new members was ab-initio void and Writ Apceal No. 560 of 2010 ^ c\ election cannot be convene on the basis of newly enrolled members. He placed reliance on 2 decisions i.e. A.I.R. 1997, SueremejCourt, 2925 K. Shantharaj & another Vs M.L. Nasaraia & Others, and A.I.R. 2000 M.P. 44 Sujit Kumar Banerjee Vs State of IVI.P.& Others. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the interveners/newly enrolled members, opposed these arguments and contend that Registrar/Administrator has full authority to enroll new members and the election should be convened on the basis of voter list prepared after enrollment of new members by the administrator as per Section 33(4) of the Act, 1973. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal as also the writ petition. (6) The learned Single Judge has already directed that the election shall be convened on the basis of members enrolted earlier, prior to the appointment of the new administrator, therefore, nothing more is required to be directed in writ appeal. Further if a controversy has been raised, we would clarify the order passed by learned Single Judge, which we do in the following manner (7) In K. Shantharai (Supra), the matter was relating to Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Section 30 & 30-A of the Act i i® :%.i \.v;y '•Biassc.s.-'' . Writ_ABBeal_No,560 of 2010 ^ e deal with the provisions of supersession of the committee and appointment of special officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 30-A of the said Act reads as under:- "(3) The Special Officer subject to the control of the State Government and the Registrar, exercise and perform all the powers and functions of the committee of the co-operative society and take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the co-operative society." It was interpretated by the Supreme Court that the language of the above provision would make it clear that the administratoi or the Special Off'lcer would do all functions in the interest of the society as per law. He will conduct the election as is enjoyed their under. But he is not vested with power to enroll new members of the society. (8) In Sujit Kumar Baneriee (Supra), the learned Single Judge of M.P. High Court, dealing with the matter of M.P. (C.G.) Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court, has also held that Administrator though tias every power to exercise all the functions of the governing body as per Section 33 (4), cannot enrol new members. He has to hold election on strength of membership, which were available with the society on the date of its supersession. Writ Aopeal No. 560 of 2010 (9) The provisions of above two Acts i.e. Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act & M.P. (C.G.) Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, Section 33 (4) are almost similar. Therefore, on the above view taken by the Supreme Court, the Registrar/Administrator was having no authority to enroll new members and he has to conduct Ihe election on the basis of the list of members, which was existing on the date of supersession, which in this matter would come o.n 15.05.2006. (10) Therefore, we dispose of this writ appeal by short clarification that the Registrar/ Administrator as the case may be, shall hold the election strictly in accordance with the list of members, which was prevailing on the date of supersession i.e. 15.05.2006. We furthor direct that the election shall be convened within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The liberty reserved in the order dated 4 December 2010 remains as it is. (11) The writ appeal, therefore, is disposed of with the above clarification ofthe impugned order dated 4 December, 2010. (12) No orders as to cost. Sd/- ' SU!UlKUmarsm^a Judge Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge