Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1078 (MP)

Rakesh Bharti v. Joint Registrar

2009-09-01

K.C.SHARMA, P.D.MISHRA

body2009
ORDER 1. Revision u/s. 77 (14) has been preferred against the order of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (HQ) passed u/s. 53 (10) on 12.6.2009 through which the Board of the applicants has been placed under suspension. 2. According to the brief facts of the matter, applicant No.5 is the District Agricultural Rural Development Bank registered u/s. 9 of the Act. Applicant No.1 is the Chairman and the applicants No. 2,3 and 4 are Directors of it. Applicants are aggrieved by the impugned order of the non-applicant No.1 Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (HQ) who vide the impugned order has placed the Board of applicant No.5 Bank under suspension as provided u/s 55 (10) of the Act. It is worth recording that the non-applicant Joint Registrar (HQ) has already initiated action u/s 53 (2) by issuing a notice for superseding the Board of Directors u/s 53 (1) of the Act on the allegations levelled against it. A separate notice u/s 53 (10) was also issued and the same has culminated into a final order issued on 12.6.2009 against which this Revision is preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant had levelled a number of charges against non-applicant for proceeding against the applicants malafidely and also on political grounds. However, as it is an interim order passed u/s. 53 (10) which has been assailed and is before us for consideration, we are neither inclined to go into such details or even into the merits and de-merits of the charges as it is the subject matter of final order if any passed u/s. 53 (1) of the Act by the non-applicant No.1 Joint Registrar (HQ). Since the same is still in process we would also not like to make any assessment or even make any observation on the nature and the quality of the allegations as that may have a bearing on the order to be passed by the Joint Registrar which is not in accordance with a judicial properly of the matter. 4. The counsel for the applicants further stated that the applicants have been proceeded against on the actions of the previous Board which is unjustified and worth setting aside in light of 2003 RN 35 Narayan Singh Meena v. M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal. It was also submitted that the impugned order of the Joint Registrar is hit by the principle of res judicata as well. It was also submitted that the impugned order of the Joint Registrar is hit by the principle of res judicata as well. Initially Joint Registrar; Gwalior while issuing notice u/s. 53 (2) had also placed the Board of the applicant Bank under the supervision of the Collector. Therefore, by the impugned order suspending the Board again is not proper according to the principle of res judicata. 5. Shri Anoop sharma, learned Govt. counsel submitted that the impugned order is just an interim measure and the applicants are at liberty to forward all the arguments they are placing before the Tribunal before the Joint Registrar (HQ) in the main case under consideration of him in section 53 (2). He also submitted that the impugned order is at all not hit by the principle of res judicata as section 53 (10) provides separately the two stages of Order i.e. placing the Board under suspension in accordance with section 53 (10) and suspending the Board in accordance with the proviso added into it. 6. It is clear from the simple reading of section 53 (10) that the Act intends to proceed simulataneously while contemplating super session u/s. 53 (10) to also suspend the Board in special circumstances as the Registrar might not consider the continuation of it in the interest of the society. Initially it was only a supervisory authority who could have been appointed but vide Amendment No. 14 of 1976 the proviso has been inserted about the suspension of the Board. In 1988 through Amendment No. 25 a further proviso has been added requiring the Registrar to provide the opportunity of hearing to the Board before suspension. This is obviously in accordance with the principle of natural justice and in accordance with the rulings of the Court. It is in this light only that the Tribunal in its Judgment reported in Sanchalak Mandal, Yagya Sagar Matsya Udhyog v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tikarrigarh, 2006 RN 236 had made following observations:-- "Unless the opinion of the Registrar is objectively expressed, the committee of the society cannot answer it and the last proviso would become redundant. Thus, in my opinion it is necessary that there should be a separate detailed show cause notice if the Registrar wants to proceed u/s. 53 (10) of the Act, independent of show cause notice u/s. 53 (2) of the Act." 7. Thus, in my opinion it is necessary that there should be a separate detailed show cause notice if the Registrar wants to proceed u/s. 53 (10) of the Act, independent of show cause notice u/s. 53 (2) of the Act." 7. Joint Registrar has accordingly issued a separate show cause notice and passed a separate order which is the impugned one in the instant case before us. It also Came up during argument that if it is an independent order then only an appeal u/s. 78 should lie against it whereas it is byway of revision that the appellants have approached us. Govt. counsel was of the opinion that the Tribunal in the above cited order has only expressed its view but in all certainty action u/s. 53 (10) is an integral part of action contemplated u/s. 53 (1). Therefore, the order passed u/s. 53 (10) cannot be discussed on merit at length. As we have stated earlier it would certainly affect the order to be passed by the Joint Registrar (HQ) u/s. 53 (1) finally. Therefore, we have considered this application as Revision application u/s. 77 (14) and the effect of the above cited judgment of the Tribunal in our view is to be treated only an advisory one and not binding one in all such cases. 8. Coming to the relief and prayer sought by the applicants for setting aside the impugned order we are not inclined to be interfering with it as it is only an interim type order which has been passed after affording opportunity to the applicants properly. We are not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants forcefully forwarded that a proper opportunity of hearing was denied as the order was passed on 12.6.2009 whereas the documents required by them were provided to them on 11.6.2009 only. Joint Registrar in his order dated 11.6.2009 has very well recorded that Shri Omprakash Patidar, the counsel for the appli1cants appearing before him wanted some documents which were provided to him. But as the case was fixed for final arguments and as many opportunities were already provided to the applicants, the Joint Registrar in his wisdom has not considered the demand of the applicants for another adjournment and has closed the case for final orders. But as the case was fixed for final arguments and as many opportunities were already provided to the applicants, the Joint Registrar in his wisdom has not considered the demand of the applicants for another adjournment and has closed the case for final orders. It is important to note that the, notice u/s. 53 (10) was issued to the applicants as early as on 20.02.2009 and this order u/s. 53 (10) has been passed on 12.6.2009 which is after more than four months. Joint Registrar has also in page-3 of his order recorded that as many as twelve opportunities were provided to the applicants. The counsels have also registered their presence before the Joint Registrar at various occasions which has been recorded by the Joint Registrar in his order. For instance on 16-03-2009 Shri Ramji Shrivastav, Advocate on behalf of Shri Mukut Singh and Smt. Kamla Sai appeared before him. Learned counsel Shri O.P. Patidar also appeared before the Joint Registrar on 28-05-2009, 09-06-2009 and 11-06-2009. 9. As we have stated earlier the action u/s 53(10) is just consequential and interim no more opportunities can be contemplated to be provided in it as the same is naturally available u/s 53(2) of the Act which is very much well before the applicants for putting up their defence in case before the Joint Registrar (HQ). 10. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find it fit to intervene in the impugned order of the Joint Registrar (HQ) as a consequence of it the application is hereby dismissed.