Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1040 (PAT)

Ram Mukhiya v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-24

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated October 3/19, 2001 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Revision Case No. 78 of 2001. By the impugned order a copy of which is at Annexure 1, the Registrar rejected the revision filed by the petitioners against the conversion/registration Of an earlier Co-operative Society as a self supporting society under the provisions of the Bihar Self Supporting Societies Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Self Supporting Act, 1996). 2. The facts are brief and simple. In the year, 1993, the cooperative society was registered u/s. 11 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 under the name of Alinagar Prakhand Matsyajeevi Sahkari Samiti Limited. In 1996 the Self Supporting Act came into force and in March, 1998 a petition under Sec. 5 of the Self Supporting Act was filed before the Dist. Co-operative Officer, Darbhanga for conversion of the cooperative society into a self supporting society. The Dist. Cooperative Officer allowed the request for conversion by order, dated 31-3-2000 and the Society was issued a certificate of registration under the Self Supporting Act. From that date if started functioning as a self supporting society. 3. In November, 2000 the petitioners filed a revision before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies raising a dispute u/s. 48 of the 1935 Act and questioning the conversion of the society into a selfsupporting society and its registration under the Self Supporting Act. The Registrar by an order, dated 14-11-2000, passed ex parte and without notice to the Society and its office bearers impleaded as Opp. party in that petition, admitted the revision and sent it for disposal before the Dy. Registrar (Judicial), Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. On 7-12-2000, on a petition filed in the case, the Deputy Registrar stayed the conversion/ registration of the society, into a self supporting society though the registration was made in March, 1998 itself. A petition filed by the Opp. party (respondents in this writ petition) for recall of the stay order was rejected on 11-1-2001 and another petition questioning the maintainability of the revision petition was similarly rejected by order, dated 30-3-2001. A petition filed by the Opp. party (respondents in this writ petition) for recall of the stay order was rejected on 11-1-2001 and another petition questioning the maintainability of the revision petition was similarly rejected by order, dated 30-3-2001. Against the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, the respondents filed a revision before the Registrar on 9-6-2001 in which, apart from challenging the order of interim stay, they assailed the very maintainability of the petitioners case, challenging the conversion/registration of the society as a self supporting society. The Registrar upheld the contention of the respondents and found and held that the petitioners challenge to the conversion/registration of the Society as a self supporting society was not maintainable. He, accordingly, allowed the revision filed by the respondents and dismissed the petitioners petition which at that stage was pending before the Dy. Registrar (Judicial). It is this order passed by the Registrar that comes under challenge in this writ petition. 4. It appears that the petitioners anticipated that before the Registrar the maintainability of their case would be assailed on the ground that a dispute under sec. 48 of the 1935 Act could not be raised with regard to conversion/registration of a society as a self supporting society under the 1996 Act. Accordingly, they appeared before the Registrar, armed with the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 8718 of 1999 (Biswanath Sahni and Ors. V/s. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and Ors., date of disposal June 27, 2000). In this judgment, it was held that under the provisions of the 1935 Act, it was open to the Registrar to examine the validity of the conversion/registration of an earlier society as a self supporting society under the 1996 Act. In view of this judgment, the Registrar of course could not hold that a dispute raised under Sec. 48 of the 1935 Act was not maintainable with regard to the conversion of the earlier Society as a self supporting Society. He, however, felt the need for fixing a period of limitation for raising a dispute regarding conversion/registration of an earlier Society as a self supporting society and observed that, according to him, a period of six months should serve as reasonable period of limitation for raising such a dispute. He, however, felt the need for fixing a period of limitation for raising a dispute regarding conversion/registration of an earlier Society as a self supporting society and observed that, according to him, a period of six months should serve as reasonable period of limitation for raising such a dispute. In this case, he found that the petitioners had challenged the conversion/registration of the society as a self supporting society after more than a year and a half and that the society was functioning as a self supporting society and its office bearers were holding their respective offices for over 21 months before the order of stay was passed. He, therefore, held that the dispute was raised beyond the period of limitation fixed by him and, hence, it was not to be entertained. 5. To my mind, the learned Registrar was clearly in error in fixing a period of limitation of six months when there was no limitation prescribed by the Statute. In the absence of any statutory prescription it is not open to the Registrar or to a Court to import a fixed and inflexible period of limitation. The law is well settled on this point This is, however, not to say that in matters where the Statute does not fix a period of limitation, it is open to a person seeking arelief to approach the Court/ authority on his own sweet will and a long time after the cause of action had risen. It is equally well settled that relief can be denied to a person on grounds of laches and unexplained delay in approaching a Court. Even in matters where there is no limitation fixed by the Statute, it is incumbent upon the person seeking relief to approach the Court expeditiously and without any undue delay and as soon as may be practicably possible since the arising of the cause of action. A case may be thrown out on grounds of unexplained delay even though filed within a period of much less than six months and in case the delay is explained satisfactorily, a claim may be entertained even after year or more. 6. A case may be thrown out on grounds of unexplained delay even though filed within a period of much less than six months and in case the delay is explained satisfactorily, a claim may be entertained even after year or more. 6. In this case, therefore, though the Registrar was in error in fixing a period of limitation on his own when there was no statutory prescription in that regard, he was quite justified in his conclusion, in disallowing the petitioners to raise objection against the conversion/registration of the society as self supporting society after 20 months. 7. In my view, therefore, he arrived at a correct conclusion though for an erroneous reason. 8. For the reasons discussed above, the order passed by the Registrar does not warrant any interference by this Court and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. This writ is dismissed.