Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 1300 (RAJ)

Jawahar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Jodhpur v. Addl. Registrar Cooperative Societies

1998-12-02

B.J.SHETHNA

body1998
Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner Society and its Chairman and Secretary have filed this writ petition and challenged the impugned order dated 4.9.1996 passed by the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur and the order dated 8.9.1998 passed by the Addl.Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. (2). The Dy.Registrar by his order dated 4.9.1996 allowed the appeal filed by the private respondent no.3 and declared that the respondent no.3 was the Member of the Society with effect from 7.11.1990 and ordered the Society to give all benefits to the respondent no.3 as the Member of the Society. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner-Society before the Addl.Registrar by way of revision which was dismissed on two counts; (1) on the ground of limitation; and (2) on the ground of merits. These are the orders challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner Society through its Chairman and Secretary. (3). The learned counsel Shri Joshi appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Dy.Registrar was in clear error in allowing the appeal which was time barred for almost a period of six years for which there was no application for condonation of delay. On merits also, the Dy.Registrar committed an error as he has wrongly taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short `the Rules). (4). Shri Joshi has also challenged the order of the Addl.Registrar dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of merits. According to him, the Addl.Registrar ought not to have rejected the revision petition of the petitioners on the ground of delay. On merits, he submitted that the Addl.Registrar committed the same error which was committed by the Dy.Registrar by invoking Rule 18 of the Rules. For rejecting their revision petition by the Addl.Registrar on the ground of delay, Shri Joshi has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and ors. (1) and submitted that the Addl.Registrar ought not to have rejected the revision petition on the ground of delay which was hardly barred by limitation on one month. (5). Going through the order of the Addl. Registrar, it appears that the Addl. Registrar has observed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner-Society was time barred,therefore, it was required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. (5). Going through the order of the Addl. Registrar, it appears that the Addl. Registrar has observed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner-Society was time barred,therefore, it was required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. If the revision petition was dismissed only on the ground of limitation, then this Court would have certainly interfered with that order, but the Addl.Registrar after holding that the revision petition was time barred he proceeded to decide the revision petition also on merits. On merits, the Addl.Registrar held that Rule 18 of the Rules has been breached in this case by the Society, therefore, the decision of the Addl.Registrar was right and not required to be disturbed. (6). The judgment of the Apex Court in Katijis case (supra) cited by the learned counsel Shri Joshi, will take care of the submission made by Shri Joshi himself about the Dy.Registrar deciding the appeal on merits which was time barred for a period of six years. It is true that no such application was made by the Member to condone the delay in filing the appeal late. However, when the Dy.Registrar has decided the case on merits, it impliedly means that he has decided the case by condoning the delay. In Katijis case (supra), the Apex Court itself has observed that the matter should not be thrown out on technical grounds like limitation etc. (7). On merits, the submission of Shri Joshi was that the respondent no.3 never applied for the membership, because instead of making an application to the Committee, as provided under Section-19 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short `the Act), the made an application to the Chairman, who misappropriated the amount of Rs. 251/- and issued the receipt. In absence of any Resolution passed by the Committee of the Society accepting the respondent no.3 as its Member, the respondent no.3 had no right to become Member. Thus, in short, the submission of Shri Joshi was that in this case, both the authorities below, namely, Dy.Registrar and the Addl.Registrar should have considered the provisions of Section 19 of the Act and not Rule 18 of the Rules. According to his submission, Rule 18 of the Rules will apply where the Member is to be expelled by the Society. According to his submission, Rule 18 of the Rules will apply where the Member is to be expelled by the Society. His submission was that when no membership was granted to the respondent no.3, then, there was no question of expelling him. (8). On the material placed before the Dy.Registrar and the Addl. Registrar if they have come to the conclusion that the respondent no.3 was a Member, then this Court would not interfere with such finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below in exercise of its extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the Dy.Registrar held that the respondent no.3 was Member and accordingly,the direction was issued to the petitioner/Society to extend all the benefits to him as Member of the Society. However, it will be open to the petitioner Society to take appropriate proceedings as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules, if according to the petitioner- Society, the respondent no.3 was made Member in clear violation of Section 19 of the Act. (9). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.