Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 630 (PAT)

Jagannath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-24

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition. the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30th January, 1991 (Annexure 3) passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur (respondent no. 2) in Surcharge Case No. 1/90 in so far as it relates to them. 2. It appears that under section 40 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 the said Surcharge Case No. 1/90 was initiated against Sri Jagdeo Rai, Former Honourary Secretary of Munger-Jamui Co-operative Society Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Munger and its Managing Director Bharosa Ram. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, the surcharge proposal was neither submitted against them nor they were made party in a case at any stage. In paragraph 12 it is stated that neither any notice nor any opportunity of being heard in the matter was afforded to the petitioners by the Joint Registrar. As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 30th January, 1991 in so far as it relates to the petitioners is violative of the provisions oi Section 40(1) of the Act and is without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice. 4. At the stage of admission several times opportunity was granted to the learned Standing counsel appearing for the State and its officials to find out as to whether the petitioners were given any opportunity or hearing before the impugned order was passed but no affidavit was filed and the Court vide order dated 13.8.1992 adjourned the matter for listing on 3rd September, 1992 on payment of cost of Rs. 250/- payable by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent no. 2) from his own pocket. On 14.9.1993 the learned Standing Counsel No. 1 then appearing for the State and its officials informed the Court that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent no. 2) has not yet given any instruction. The Court expressing anguish admitted the writ petition and directed for issuance of notice to respondents no. 5 to 9. The Joint Director, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur was directed to file a show cause in regard to his conduct which was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the writ application. The Court observed that it will be for the Bench to pass any further order which it may consider expedient. 5 to 9. The Joint Director, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur was directed to file a show cause in regard to his conduct which was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the writ application. The Court observed that it will be for the Bench to pass any further order which it may consider expedient. Despite this, no counter affidavit has been filed nor the show cause in pursuance to the order dated 14.9.1993 has been filed by the Joint Registrar (respondent no. 2). 5. This Court feels shocked because of there being no response from the respondents, specially the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur and directs the State Government to take appropriate action against respondent no. 2 for completely ignoring the orders of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there being no denial of the aforementioned facts stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. In the absence of any counter affidavit learned counsel for the State has not been able to defend the impugned order in so far as it relates to the petitioners. Section 40 clearly provides that "the Registrar may enquire into the conduct of the erring person or Officer and after giving such person or Officer an opportunity of being heard make an order requiring him to contribute such sum to the assets of the Society or of the Financing Bank, as the case may be, by way of compensation in respect of such payment or loss of sum, or to restore such property as the Registrar thinks fit, together with such sum as the Registrar may fix to meet the cost of the proceedings under the said provision". As it is not disputed that the petitioners were not given any notice much less an opportunity of being heard before imposing surcharge on them, the impugned order is in clear violation of the provisions of Section 40 besides being violative of the principles of natural justice and thus, is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 3, in so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 3, in so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. However, this order shall not come in the way of the appropriate authority from taking any appropriate action as is permissible in law against the petitioners.