Rajesh Singh v. Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies
2013-03-08
J.K.MAHESHWARI, Santanu Kemkar
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.2.2013 passed by MP State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal (in short, the Tribunal) in Revision No. 25/2013 and 29/2013 by which the Tribunal has granted stay of the order dated 11.1.2013 passed by Joint Registrar, Ujjain. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the order of supersession is passed and the committee of society is removed or suspended or ceases to function the person or persons entitled to receive the charge of the committee or society, as the case may be, shall assume charge. He placed reliance on section 53(13) and 53-A(1)(iii) of the Act for the said purpose. He placed reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MK Shrivastava, Prabhari Adhikari and Assistant Registrar, District Cooperative Land Development Bank, Sagar v. Board of Revenue, MP and others 1988 RN 396 in which this Court in para 2 has observed thus:- 2. Section 53A (1) (11) (b) of the Act, gives power to the Registrar to appoint an officer in-charge to manage the affairs of the society and under sub-section (2), it is deemed that the person so appointed as officer-in-charge assumes officer from the moment the order is passed. The Board held that the question is whether the deeming provision can be rebutted and in the present case the petitioner has not taken over charge as yet. There can be no doubt that the appellate authority has power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction but the discretion has to be exercised according to law. The Supreme Court in BP Andra v. Supdt. Central Jail AIR 1975 SC 164 , has held that it is now well settled that where a legal fiction is created, full effect must be given to it and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. In interpreting a legal fiction the Court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created. Section 58-A was introduced by Amending Act No.14 of 1976 as the provision of the Act were found to be inadequate to meet certain situation. Therefore, the power of the appellate authority to grant stay is circumscribed by the provisions of section 53-A (2).
Section 58-A was introduced by Amending Act No.14 of 1976 as the provision of the Act were found to be inadequate to meet certain situation. Therefore, the power of the appellate authority to grant stay is circumscribed by the provisions of section 53-A (2). Once the order is passed under section 53, superseding the Board of Directors and an officer-in-charge is appointed, it is deemed that he had assumed charge the moment the order is passed. Therefore, the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the petitioner has not yet taken over charge, interpreting a similar provision in the Municipalities Act. This Court, in Babulal Jain v. State of MP, 1966 JLJ 735, held that the motion of no confidence is not an executory order or resolution. It takes effect from the moment it is passed. The result is that under section 18, the office bearers cease to hold office immediately after a motion of no-confidence is passed. Hence, no stay can be granted. It is true that this petition has been filed against an interlocutory order, but when the stay is granted against legel principles, the case is really on which calls for interference under Article 276 of the Constitution ( AIR 1965 MP 142 ). 4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed an error in staying the order passed by the Joint Registrar as once the order of supersession was passed and the officer in-charge is appointed it is deemed that he has assumed charge. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the interim order passed by the Tribunal and request the Tribunal to dispose of the revision finally as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. Parties are directed to appear on 18.3.2013, the date which has already been fixed.