Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1670 (MP)

Maharaj Singh Dhakad v. Narendra Singh Jadon

2014-12-16

S.K.GANGELE, SHEEL NAGU

body2014
JUDGMENT Gangele, J. -- 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 26th November, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by M. P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. 2. The election of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Rampurkalan was held on 18.1.2013 at Sabalgarh, District Morena. In the aforesaid election, Mr. Narendra Singh Jadon (respondent No.1) was declared as President of the Credit Cooperative Society. Other office bearers were also elected. One Maharaj Singh Dhakad (petitioner No.1) submitted a complaint before the Commissioner, Cooperative Societies that the declaration of result of President and other office bearers was illegal. Actually, Mr.Ramhet Dhakad received 7 votes and Mr. Narendra Singh Jadon received four votes in the election. However, the Election Officer illegally changed the proceedings and declared Mr.Narendra Singh Jadon as President of the Credit Cooperative Society. The Commissioner, vide order dated 5.2.2013, directed the Deputy Registrar to submit his report on the complaint. The Deputy Registrar directed Audit Officer, Cooperative Society, Morena to conduct an enquiry. 3. Audit Officer Mr. O.N. Sharma, conducted the enquiry in regard to election of Primary Agriculture Credit Society, Rampurkalan and submitted his report to the Deputy Registrar to the effect that there were irregularities committed in the election and signatures of some persons were forged by the Election Officer. Hence, declaration of result and conduct of election of the Society was illegal. On the basis of aforesaid report, the Deputy Registrar recommended the Commissioner for cancellation of election of the Cooperative Society and recommended holding fresh election of the Society vide order dated 13.2.2013. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner, Cooperative Society vide order dated 4th September, 2014 in exercise of power under section 80(A) of MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1960''] set aside the election of the Cooperative Society held on 18.1.2013 and ordered that a fresh election be held. 4. Against the aforesaid order, Mr. Narendra Singh Jadon-respondent No.1 filed a revision before MP State Cooperative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26th November, 2013 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Registrar on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 64 of the Act of 1960, the Registrar had no power to invoke his jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred under section 80-A of the Act, 1960. 5. section 64 of the Act, 1960 prescribes disputes and arbitration. 5. section 64 of the Act, 1960 prescribes disputes and arbitration. section 64(1)(v) of the Act, 1960 prescribes dispute in regard to election, which is as under :- “64(1)(v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society. Provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the results.” section 80(A) prescribes power of Registrar to call for proceedings by subordinate Officers and committee of a Society and to pass orders thereon. The aforesaid section reads as under :- “80-A. Power of Registrar to call for proceedings of subordinate Officers and committee of a Society and to pass orders thereon.- The Registrar, may at any time on his own motion or on the application made by any party, call for and examine the record of any enquiry, or the proceedings by any sub-ordinate officer or a decision of the Committee of a society for which Government has contributed to its share capital or has given loans or financial assistance or has guaranteed the repayment of loans granted in any other form for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regulatory of the proceedings of such officer or committee. If in any case, it appears to the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Registrar, may pass such order thereon as he may deem fit: Provided that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of any party unless such party has had an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the powers conferred on the Registrar under this section, shall not be delegated to any officer below the rank of Joint Registrar” 6. From the reading of last proviso of section 80-A of the Act,1960, it is clear that the powers conferred to the Registrar under this section shall not be delegated to any officer below the rank of Joint Registrar. The proviso clearly stipulates that officer below the rank of Joint Registrar has no authority to exercise the powers under the aforesaid section. 7. The proviso clearly stipulates that officer below the rank of Joint Registrar has no authority to exercise the powers under the aforesaid section. 7. In the present case, the Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, i.e. Registrar directed the Deputy Registrar to conduct the enquiry. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar directed the Audit Officer to conduct the enquiry and the Audit Officer conducted the enquiry. On the basis of the report of Audit Officer, the Deputy Registrar forwarded his opinion to the Registrar and thereafter, Additional Registrar passed the order. 8. In view of the provision of section 80-A of the Act, 1960 as quoted above, the proceedings conducted by the Deputy Registrar and Audit Officer are without power and authority and hence, null and void. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, it is not necessary to consider the fact that whether the Registrar can invoke his power under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 in view of provision of section 64(1)(v) of the Act, 1960. Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, however, for different reasons. 10. The petitioners are at liberty to raise a dispute before the competent authority under section 64(1)(v) of the Act, 1960 and if any dispute is raised by the petitioners within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the competent authority shall decide the same, ignoring the question of limitation in view of the peculiar facts of the case. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.