Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1400 (PNJ)

Balram Kaushal v. Registrar, Coop. Socieities

2012-10-05

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners claimed themselves as members of the third respondent – Nangal Cooperative Truck Operators Goods Carriers Transport Society Ltd., Nangal (hereinafter called the Society). The same was registered at Naya Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib under Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The Managing Committee of the Society on 19.10.2011 without any reason and notice deleted all the entries of truck numbers of the petitioners i.e. all the 16 truck numbers registered with the Society were deleted from the register. The work is allotted only to the truck registered as members of the society. The petitioners therefore, left with the no allotment of work. The petitioners were having 18 trucks and thus, were deprived of Rs.50,000/- p.m. 2. The petitioners made a complaint/application on 02.11.2011 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Anandpur Sahib against the action of deleting the truck numbers of the petitioners from the register arbitrarily. Assistant Registrar issued notice on this application of the complainant to the President and Manager of the Society. Despite notice, the President did not appear. The petitioners, however, appeared before the Assistant Registrar and produced record about the membership. The Assistant Registrar after inquiry has held that Managing Committee had illegally and arbitrarily deleted the membership of the petitioners and further directed the Committee to restore the deleted truck numbers of the petitioners. The petitioners were thus, entitled to allotment of work. Instructions were also issued to the Inspector, Cooperative Society to implement the order passed. The Inspector thereafter visited the office of the Committee on 03.12.2011 and served the order dated 02.12.2011 to the society after obtaining the due receipt. The Inspector called upon the Committee to comply with the order. 3. On 13.01.2012, the Assistant Registrar issued a show cause notice to the Managing Committee of the Society and framed 8 charges against the Committee. One of the charge was with regard to non-compliance of the orders passed by the authorities and gave 15 days time to the Committee to comply with the directions and to file response to the allegations made in the show cause notice. 4. The Managing Committee even thereafter did not restore the membership of the petitioners and comply with the order passed. 4. The Managing Committee even thereafter did not restore the membership of the petitioners and comply with the order passed. The petitioners made a representation to the Registrar as well as Assistant Registrar stating therein that the directions for restoring the truck numbers of the petitioners vide order dated 02.12.2011 had not been complied with. Since the petitioners were suffering huge financial loss has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 5. After noticing the contention raised by Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court passed a detailed order on 23.05.2012, operative part of which is as under: “Without going into the allegations and counterallegations of the parties and disputed questions of fact, there can be no gain-saying that the foundation of the rule of law is giving hearing to persons whose rights are likely to be affected by action taken. There is preponderance of authorities in support of the proposition that if the determination by a body depends upon following the principles of natural justice; the decision given by it would be treated as a nullity in case it has failed to follow those principles. An aggrieved party would in that case be not under any obligation to have the decision set aside in appeal. It would be open to it to challenge its validity at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. On failure to perform this sacred duty of giving hearing, together with the reason as to why action is being taken, then action taken contrary to the rule of law is not only to be regarded as procedurally ultra vires, but also without jurisdiction. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this Court speaking through M.R.Sharma, J. in Ran Singh vs. The Gandhar Agricultural Cooperative Service Society, Gandhar, AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 94 (FB). Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the meeting, I am of the considered view that right to hearing was breached by the General Body when it transacted business to oust the petitioners from membership. I have examined this matter only from the point of view of right to hearing. There is wholesome remedy before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh where both the parties can ventilate their grievances. I have examined this matter only from the point of view of right to hearing. There is wholesome remedy before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh where both the parties can ventilate their grievances. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties present, the matter in hand is remitted to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh who will hold a detailed inquiry into the matter, including verification of the authenticity of the meeting of the Governing Body held on 01.08.2011 together with all other legal and factual issues that may be canvassed before the authority. The respondent-Society would produce the agenda and resolution dated 01.08.2011 in original before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh. I would direct the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh to draw up a report and submit the same before this Court, preferably within two months. Parties are directed to appear before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 06.06.2012 at 3.00 pm. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab would follow such procedure in determining the issues involved as he thinks fit in his discretion.” 6. Pursuant to the above directions passed by this Court, the inquiry has been held in this case. The inquiry report has been placed on record. When the case was called up for hearing on 14.08.2012, it was pointed out before this Court by Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate, who appeared and stated that Assistant Registrar had impugned the order passed by this Court on 23.05.2012 and the LPA Bench had disposed of the appeal with observation that the inquiry in this case be held without being influenced by any observation made by Assistant Registrar. The counsel also prayed for time to move an application on behalf of Assistant Registrar for being impleaded as respondent. Today, neither counsel has appeared nor any application has been so filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the inquiry report where it has been concluded that recording of the attendance of the members during the General Body Meeting dated 01.08.2011 of the respondent-society has been done wrongly. Further finding is that the attendance in the said Meeting was inflated wrongly to complete the requisite quorum as has been explained in the forgoing paras 1.4 to 1.7 of the inquiry report. Further finding is that the attendance in the said Meeting was inflated wrongly to complete the requisite quorum as has been explained in the forgoing paras 1.4 to 1.7 of the inquiry report. Ultimately it is held that membership of the petitioners and other members has been terminated wrongly because they had not been given any opportunity of hearing, which was against the principle of natural justice. It has also been noticed that the petitioners had been associated with the working of the society for 13/14 years. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners accordingly submits that the case for issuance of direction for restoring their membership is clearly made out. 8. The whole issue set up by the petitioners is regarding not affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are members of the society, for over a decade. The inquiry officer has clearly held so and has further concluded that the order against the interest of the petitioners has been passed is violation of principle of natural justice. The order terminating the membership of the petitioners therefore, cannot be sustained on this short ground. Any order, which is passed against the interest of any individual without affording him any opportunity of hearing obviously cannot be sustained as it will be in violation of fair hearing. Every one is entitled to hearing which has to be a fair hearing before any adverse order is passed. The Managing Committee/General Body was to pass an order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and accordingly, this order on the short ground cannot be sustained and is set aside. If any, order is to be passed by the General Body, the petitioners would be entitled to remain present and afforded an opportunity to represent their side. If the General Body is still intending to pass any order, it can do so only thereafter. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.