IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.:1106/2008 Reserved on: 26.2.2009 Decided on:30.4.2009 Upper Lohara Cooperative Cho Reclamation and Soil Conservation Society and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Thakur and Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. CMP No. 2711/2008: This application has been preferred by respondent No.4 to bring on record the subsequent events. The present writ petition was filed by the Upper Lohara Cooperative Cho Reclamation and Soil Conservation Society through its President. Petitioner No.2 is the President of the society. Petitioner No.3 is the Secretary of the petitioners’-society. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 society was registered on 14.2.1975. Its registration was cancelled by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide office order dated 26.9.2008. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that after the cancellation of the registration of the society, the present petition is not maintainable. He then contended that the moment the registration of the society is cancelled, the resolution on the basis of which the present petition was filed becomes nullity. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate has vehemently argued that the present petition is still maintainable even if the registration of the society was cancelled on 26.9.2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The society was registered on 14.2.1975. The order of amalgamation was passed by the competent authority on 14.9.2007. The appeal preferred by the society was rejected by the Principal Secretary (Cooperation) on 5.6.2008. The registration of the petitioners’ society was cancelled on 26.9.2008. The petitioners’ society was required to challenge this order dated 26.9.2008 independently. The moment the registration of the society is cancelled, it looses its legal entity, rights and privileges of a society. In the present case, the petitioners’ society has been amalgamated with the Lower Lohara Cho Reclamation and Soil Conservation Society on 14.9.2007. In the light of above, the application is allowed. The subsequent developments are noted and it is held that after the cancellation of the registration of the petitioners’ society, the petition is not maintainable. 3 CMP No. 3984/2008: This application has been preferred by three persons, who are members of the Upper Lohara Cooperative Cho Reclamation and Soil Conservation Society for impleading them as petitioners. The present petition was filed by the Upper Lohara Cooperative Cho Reclamation and Soil Conservation Society. It was amalgamated with the Lower Lohara Cooperative Cho Reclamation and soil Conservation Society. The appeal preferred by the society was dismissed by the Principal Secretary (Cooperation) on 5.6.2008. The society has been heard by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society and also by the Principal Secretary (Cooperation). Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that the applicants have the necessary locus standi to assail the order of amalgamation being the members of the Upper Lohara Cooperative Cho Reclamation and Soil Conservation Society. He also contended that the applicants were not heard before the order of amalgamation. This question has been considered by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daman Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others, (1985) 2 SCC 670. Their Lordships have held that once a person becomes a member of a cooperative society, he looses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He is required to act and speak through the society. Their Lordships have further held that the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. The next submission of the learned counsel was that S. 13(8), (9) and (10) did not make express provision for the issue of notice to the members of the concerned Co-operative Societies and were, therefore, violative of 4 the principles of natural justice. He argued that in the absence of any provision, the rules of natural justice may be read into the provisions and notice to the members of the affected societies was imperative. Otherwise, he argued, members of one society would be forced against their will and without being heard to associate themselves with members of another society. We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission also. Once a person becomes a Member of a co-operative society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He must act and speak through the society or rather, the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body. So if the statute which authorises compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies provides for notice to the societies concerned, the requirement of natural justice is fully satisfied. The notice to the society will be deemed as notice to all its members. That is why S. 13(9)(a) provides for the issue of notice to the societies and not to individual members. S.13(9)(b), however, provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a co-operative society, in our opinion, is opposed to the very status of a co-operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. We do not consider it necessary to further elaborate the matter except to point out that a member who objects to the proposed amalgamation within the prescribed time is given, by S. 31(11), the option to walk- out, as it were, by withdrawing his share, deposits or loans as the case may be.” The judgment in Achutyanand Singh and another versus State of Bihar and others, (1972) 3 SCC 172 citied by Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 5 In the present case also the petitioners’ society has been merged/amalgamated. The order has been upheld by the Principal Secretary (Cooperation). The society, as noticed above, was heard before the orders were passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society and by the Principal Secretary (Cooperation). The applicants have no independent right except those rights given to them by the society itself. The society’s registration has also been cancelled as noticed above in CMP No. 2711/2008. In these circumstances, there is no force in this application and the same is rejected. The applicants cannot be added as petitioners. CWP No. 1106/2008: In view of the observations made hereinabove, it is held that the present writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioners’ society after cancellation of its registration and the same is dismissed being not maintainable. No costs. 30.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*