Veerpal Singh v. Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Meerut & Ors.

Judgment

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 214 of 1972. (Petition under Article 32 of the -Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights). A. P. Singh Chauhan and N. N. Sharma, for the petitioner. A. K. Sen and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asks for quashing of orders of the respondent Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut dated 2 May, 1972. By the said order dated 2 May, 1972 the respondent Deputy Registrar removed Rajendra Singh, Yograj Singh and the petitioner V eerpal Singh from the Board of Directors of the District Co-operative Federation, Bulandshahr referred to as the Bulandshahr Federation and declared them to be disqualified to the office of the Directors of the Bulandshahr Federation for a period of three years from the date of the order.

Rajendra Singh, Yograj Singh and the petitioner Veerpal Singh were delegates from the Co-operative Unions of Jarcha, Raura and Unchagaon respectively to the Bulandshahr Federation. The circumstances under which the aforesaid order came t'O be passed are these according to the Deputy Registrar. There was an inspection in the month of February, 1971 by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh aboun the constitution, working and financial condition of the Bulandshahr Fede-. ration. The Deputy Registrar found that the three constituent members of the Federation, viz., Sehkari Sangh Raura, Sehkari Sangh Jarcha and the Co-operative Union Unchagaon were defaulters in respect of their dues to the Bulandshahr Federation. Therefore the delegates from these three constituen~ members at Raura, Jarcha and Unchagaon were not.qualified to be elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Bulandshahr Federation.

The annual general meeting of the Bulandshahr Federa~ion in spite of such disqualification of those three delegates elected them as Directors of the Bulandshahr Federation. The Federation in accordance with their resolution dated 3 April 1971 stated that the three constituent members at Raura, Jarcha and Unchagaon were n~ defaulters. The Deputy Registrar stated that if a member union was a defualter such member-union was di~qualified and the disqualification attached to the delegates of such a union. The Deputy Registrar gave the Federation notice under scct:ion 3 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1965 referred to .as the Act to comply with the requirements in the inspcct:ion note. SUI'REME, COURT REPORTS Ll973] J. .s.c,K. The Federation did not comply with the requirements indicated in the report of the inspection note. The Deputy Registrar therefore passed the said order dated 2 May, 1972 .

It is necessary to refer to certain other events which took place· prior to the passing of the said order. The Bulandshahr Federation held its annual general meeting on 20 ·March, 1970 .. At the annual general meeting the committee of management was elected. The petitioner was elected one of the Directors constituting ' th.: committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation. In the month of April 1970 the petitioner was unanimously elected as Chairman of the Bulandshahr Federation, After the Deputy Registrar Co-operative societies sent a copy of the inspection rep<?rt dated 10 February 1971 the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation considered the inspection report at a meeting held. on 3 April 1971. . The Petitioner Veerpal Singh, Rajendra Singh and Yograj Singh did not parti, cipate at the meeting inasmuch as the inspection note relatcc\ to their. allege,d disqualification. The committee. of management of the Bulandshahr Federation recorded that Shri L. N. Batra, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Khurja as a Scrutiny Office~ in his judgment dated 5 March 1970 in _connection, with the nomination papers of Yograj Singh, Rajendra Singh stated that they were not defaulters · and they were competent for , membership ·of the Board of· Dire~tors.

The committre of management of the Bulandshahr Federation further resolved that none of the three persons namely, the petitioner, )' ograj Singh and Rajendra Singh had pe1sonally taken any loan from the Bulandshahr Federation . nor had the constituent members viz., the Unions at J archa, Raura and Unchagaon ever taken any loan from the Bulandshahr Fede· ration. The Committee of Management therefore unanimously decided that the petitioncr,'Yograj Singh and Rajendra Singh were not disqualified to be members of the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation. The committee of management appointed a committee consisting of Yashpal Singh and Prahlad Swarup for making enquiry in respect' of amounts outstanding against the Unions atJarcha, Raura and Unchagaon as mentioned in the inspection note.

The ):Jetitioner further alleges that on 10/15 July, 1971 the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies in collusion with the out going Deputy Registrar obtained an order removing the petitione1 under section 38 of the Act from the directorship of the Federation and also disqualifying him for a period of three years from holding any office undg the Federation. The circumstances under which the order dated ,10/15 July 1971 was passed were that the primary society at Unchagaon from which the petitioner was· a delegate to the Bulandshahr Federation was in arrears and .'.the '-rl I J

It . n JI VEERPAL V. DY, REGIS. CO-OP, SOCIETIES (Ray, J.) 433, ,prim.ary society at· Unchagaon w~{aske_d. to ~om ply with the reqmrcments of the Act and remove the arrears, The. Bulandshahr Fcocration was· also asked to secure: compliance by ·the primary society with the'provisions of the .Aci. Neither the Bulandshahr Fedfration nor the prin1ary society at Unchagaon wiped out the· arrears, Therefore,: according to the Deputy Registrar, the pe~i­ tjciner was disqualified to be ·a delegate from the primary society at :un'chagam1. Simultaneously with. the removal of the petitioner from the · coininittee of management of the Buland.shahr · Federation, the Deputy Registrar passed similar orders for removal of Y ograj from the Bulandshahr Federation. Rajendra Singh' and Yograj Singh were delegates from the Co-operative Unions at J archa and Raura.

I , · Y,ograj Singh therea[tcr made an application ·under Article 226 of: the Constitution before the Allahabad High· Court. and impeached the order dated 10/15 July, 1971 removing him from the. ccimmitee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation. The High Court at Allahabad by its judgment dated 21 February, 1972 quashed the order dated 10/15 July, 1971 by which the Deputy Registrar had removed Yograj Singh from the committee of management. The High Court held that no individual notice had beert given to Y ogra.i Singh and further tlrnt the inspection note was not a ·notice to the Society within the , meaning of sectkirt 3l!'(l) of the Act.' ; ·In view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court the com- . mittce of management of the Bulandshahr Federation reinstated Yograj Singh, Rajendra Singh and the petitioner on 15 March, 1972. · :

On 20 March, 1972 the Deputy ·Registrar Cooperative Societies issued a, notice to the Federation under section 128 of the Act to annul the resolution of the Federation dated 15 March, 1972 reinstating the . petitioner, Yograj Singh and Rajendra Singh. The Deputy Registrar on the same day issued another notice to the Bulandshahr Federation under section 38 ( 1) of the Act to show cause as to why action for removal of. the petitioner and Yograj Singh and Rajendra_Singh on !he basis of the delinquency indicated in the inspection note dated 10 February, 1971 should not be .taken. The petitioner on 24 March, 1972 and again on 29 April, '- 1972 sent two communications to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. These two communications were in answer to the notice dated 20 March, 1972 to show· cause as to why the resolu-· tion reinstating the petitjoner, Yograj ,Singh and Rajendra Singh should not be annulled and also as to why they should not be removed.

In the notice dated 20 March 1972 for annulment of the proceedings of the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation the Deputy Re.gistrar alleged that the proceedings of the committee were no~ in accordance with the provisions of bye-law No. IO(ch) and bye-law No. 11 of the registered bye- Jaws of the Federation. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar gave notice under section 128 of the Act for annulment of the resolution. The petitioner in t'he answers dated 24 March, 1972 and 29 April, 1972 stated that there was no violation of bye-laws. The petitioner further stated that the Secretary Tara Chand Sharma wilfully absented himself from the meeting and was therefore a disobedient Secretary who did not carry on the work under the supervision and guidance of the Chairman. The petitioner further stated that the procedure at the meeting held on 15 March, 19.72 was lawful. The meeting was conducted by the.acting Chairman Shri Ch. Shahmal Singh who was empowered under bye-law No. I 0 to conduct the meeting.

The proceedings of the meeting were recorded by an elected Director Shri Prahlad Swarap, Advocate who was duly appointed for that purpose Section 118 of the Act was relied on by the petitioner to contend that no act of a committee of management shall be deemed t.o be invalid by reason of any alleged defect in the appointment of an officer or on the ground that such officer was disqualified for such appointment or election. The petitioner alleged that the Bulandshahr Federation directed the Secretary Tara Chand Sharma· on 10 April 1972 to summon the meeting of the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation to consider the pros and cons of the notice dated 20 March, 1972 issued by the Deputy Regist~ar. The petitioner further alleged that Tara Chand Shanna was acting under the directions of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies.

Therefore, the petitioner alleged tha~ the Deputy Registrar was not competent and justified to annul the resolution of the committee of management of the Bulandshahr Federation at the meeting held on 15 March, 1972 under sec~on 128 of the Act. With regard to the other notice dated 20 March 1972 under section 38 of the Act to show cause as to why the petitioner and the other two delegates from J arch a and' Raura · should not be removed, the petitioner alleged that under section 27 of the Act the Registrar has power to remove or expel a person from its membership of the society (a) if the person has ceased to fulfil the qualifications required for membership or is disqualified ao be a member under the Act, or (b) if the person was admitted to the. membership of the society in contravention .of the provisions of the Act or the rules or of the bye-laws of the society.

The petitioner also referred to Rule 453(1)(0) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules 1961\ referred to as the Rules VEERPAL V. DY. REGIS. CO-OP. SOCIETIES (Ray. J.) which provides tha.t no person shall be eligible to be, or to continue as, a member of the committee of management of any cooperative society, if he is otherwise disqualified under any of the provisions of the Act or the rules or of the bye-laws of the society. Bye-law No. 1 (Ta) of the Bye-laws of the Federation provides that no persoo shall be eligible to be or continue as a member of the committee of management if he, in respect of any loan or loans taken by him, is in default to the Federation or to any other society or the society he represents is in default to the Federation for a period of at least six months. The allegations made by the Deputy Regist;rar were that the Sehkari Sanghs of Jarcha, Raura and Unchagaon were defaulters to the Federation for the sums of Rs. 4443.04, Rs. 877.43 and Rs. 515.35 respectively for a period exceeding six months as indicated in the inspection report dated 10 February, 1971.

The first question which arises for consideration is whether t,he petitioner was. a defAulter within the meaning of the Act or the bye-Jaws as alleged in the impeached order. The Secretary of the Federation wrote a letter dated 22 July, 1971 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and stated that the three cooperative Unions at Jarcha, Raura and Unchagaon owed money to the Federation in respect of supplies of fertilisers by the Federation to those three Unions. The Secretary of the Federation also gave a certificate that none of the three cooperative Unions at I archa, Raura and Unchagaon ever took any loan from the Federation. The petitioner and the other .two persons who were delegates from the three cooperative Unions did not owe any money whatever. to the cooperative Unions or to the Federation. The Federation is a District Cooperative Federation within the meaning of rule 2(o).

That rule states that a District Cooperative Federation means a Central society which inter a/ia is not a credit society. A credit society is defined in rule 2(h) to mean a society which has as its primary object the raising of funds to 1x. lent to its members. Rule 453 in sub-section (1) clause ( o) states that if a person is disqualified under the provisions of the Act or the rules or of the bye-laws of the society he shall not be eligible to be, or to continue as, a member of the committee or management The Deputy Registrar relied on bye-law No. I (Ta) of the Fede;ation which renders a person to be ineligible to be. or to continue as a member of the committee of management if he is in default to the Federation or to .any other society. That bye-law further provides that if the society he represents is in default lie .be ineligible. The Federation is not a credit society. The Federation does not have any loan transactions with the Cooperative Unions.

The Cooperative Unions did not have any loan transactions with the petitioner. The dues of the Cooperative Unions are in respect of supplies of goods by the Federation to the Cooperative Unions. These are commercial transactions. These are commercial debts. Price of goods supplied, if outstanding, does not constitute a Joan within the meaning of the bye-law. The impugned order proceeded emirely on an illegal basis and wrong interpretation of the bye-law. The order is bad. The other question which. arises for consideration is whether the Registrar has power under section 128 of the Act to annul the resolutions of the society. The Registrar proceeded on the footing that the minutes of the meeting of the Federation held on 15 March, 1971 were not correctly recorded, The Deputy Registrar alleged thnt the, Federation did not comply with the provisions of bye-law No. lO(Cha) read with bye-law No. 11 of the Federation in regard to the conduct of the meeting. Bye-law No. 11 deals with recording the proceedings of the meeting.

That bye-law s!ates that the minutes shall be recorded in the book lo be kept for the purpose and the minutes shall be signed by the person presiding an the meeting as well as by the Secfetary of the Federation. Bye-law No. IO(Cha) states that the Secretary shall be the Chief Executive officer of the Federation and subject to control and supervision of the· Chairman and the committee of management as provided in the rules or the bye-law. It is also stated in bye-law No. 10( cha) that the Secretary shall inter alia sign and authenticate all documents in and on behalf of the Federation and is responsible for the proper maintenance of various books and records of the Federation. The facts with regard to the meeting of the Federation held on 15 March, 1971 are that the Secretary wilfully absented hiinself at the meeting. The Federation therefore contended that the Secretary disobeyed the instructions. The Chairman under bye-law No. 10 is responsible for the control, supervision and efficient administration of the Federation.

The Chairman appointed an elected Dim:tor Shri Prahlad Swarup, Advocate for the purpose of recording the minutes. Under section 118 of the Act no act of a cooperative society or any committee of management shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of the existence of any defect in the constitution inter alia of committee or in the appointment of an officer of a cooperative society or on the ground that such officer was disqualified for such aPJ'ointment. The meeting of the Federation on 15 March, 1971 was properly conducted. The Chairman rightly aooointed an elected Director to record the minutes in view of the wilful absence of the Secretary. Section 188 of the Act also protects the proceedings of the meeting. The Deputy Registrar acted illegally in annuling the resolutions of the Federation held on 15 March, 1971. VEERPAL V, DY. REGIS. CO-OP, SOCIETIES (Ray, /.)

For these reasons the two orders of the Peputy Registrar dated 2 May, 1972 which are impeached by the petitioner are set aside and qua,hed . . Petitioner will be entitled to costs to be paid by the respondents The order dt. 12th October 1972 for payment of costs as Rs. 300 is cancelled. G.C.