IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 38 of 2005 Date of Decision: 03.12.2009 Manish Chandra Aggarwal & others ……. Appellants Versus District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttaranchal, District-Udham Singh Nagar and others. …… Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE TARUN AGARWALA, JUDGE Present: Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) Through the instant special appeal, the appellants have impugned the order dated 05.07.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge, disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.870 of 2005 (S/S). It would be pertinent to mention that by the impugned order this Court had arrived at a conclusion, that the writ petition filed by the appellants was not competent on account of the fact, that the same was aimed at a challenge to the action taken by respondent No.4 i.e. Kashipur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., which as per determination of the learned Single Judge was neither State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. So as to assail the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appellants were inducted into the service of 2 Kashipur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., vide orders dated 07.06.2005.After their induction into service, the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed an order dated 28.06.2005 requiring the Secretary of Kashipur Urban Co-operative Societies Ltd. to dispense with the services of the appellants, whereupon the said Secretary passed an order dated 30.06.2005 terminating the services of all the appellants. Based on the aforesaid facts, it is the vehement submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order dated 30.06.2005 was, indeed, passed on the basis of earlier order dated 28.06.2005, which was passed by the District Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is pointed out that the aforesaid order dated 28.06.2005 was passed by the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies in exercise of statutory power vested on him under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is, therefore, submitted that the challenge at the hands of the appellants when they approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 870 of 2005 (S/S) was basically aimed at the order dated 28.06.2005 issued by the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. We have also heard learned counsel for the respondents. We are satisfied that the order being assailed by the appellants when they approached this Court by filing Civil Writ petition No.870 of 2005 (S/S) having been passed by the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies was an order passed in exercise of the statutory responsibility vested on him. The same was assailable at the hands of the appellants before this Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are satisfied that the order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, while 3 disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No.870 of 2005 (S/S) deserves to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, set aside. 5. Ordinarily, we would have relegated the issue of determination of the claim on merits to the learned Single Judge. However, the scope of the claim raised at the hands of the appellants being limited, with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties we are taking up the issue canvassed in Civil Writ Petition No. 870 of 2005 (S/S) on merits as well. 6. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants on merits is that the order terminating the services of the appellants dated 28.06.2005/30.06.2005 had adverse civil consequences. The aforesaid order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. In fact, it is pointed out that no notice was even served upon the respondent before the impugned action was taken against them. It is well settled that any order adversely effecting the civil rights of a party can be passed only after the concerned individual, whose rights are affected have been informed through a notice, the basis for the contemplated action and is affording an opportunity to represent his claim by raising the defences available to him. Since the aforesaid procedure was not adopted before the action was taken against the appellants we are satisfied that the order dated 28.06.2005/30.06.2005 are liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. 7. So that either of the parties do not benefit from the faults of the rival, we are of the view that the re-induction of the appellants should wait till after the respondent authorities have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and have arrived at a conclusion. So as to enable the respondent to follow the aforesaid procedure, one month’s time should be sufficient. We are satisfied that the appellants should be re-instated in service unless the procedure is completed within expiry of period of one month from 4 today. In other words, it would be open to the respondents to follow the contemplated procedure and pass a formal order before the expiry of a period of one month, or even thereafter, however, if the procedure is not completed within one month, the appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 8. Special Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Tarun Agarwala, J.) ( J.S.Khehar, C.J. ) 03.12.2009 P.Singh