Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 139 (HP)

Shyam Lal v. Praveen Verma

2017-03-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant Contempt Petition preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful non-compliance of the judgment dated 08.09.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.1958 of 2016, titled: Shyam Lal and Others vs. Addl.CS-cum-Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Others, with further prayer to issue directions to the respondents to comply with the aforesaid judgment. Apart from above, petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondents from convening a General House fixed on 8th October, 2016. 2. `Key’ facts, as emerged from the record are that the petitioners filed writ petition bearing CWP No.1958 of 2016 seeking therein following reliefs:- “(a) Quash, set aside and clarify the observation made in para 8, 9, 10, 11 as detailed in the review petition filed by the petitioner in order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 Annexure P-7 and also set aside the order dated 15.06.2016 Annexure P-13 in so far as it dismisses the review petition filed by the present petitioner pertaining to the case; (b) Direct respondent no.3 and 4 authorities to convene the meeting of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 Society as per rules 45 and 48 of the H.P. Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1971 for discussing the no confidence motion passed by the petitioners against the office bearers of the Society in terms of the operative part of the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 by ignoring the observation made in para 8, 9, 10, 11. (c) Respondent no.6 to 12 may kindly be restrained from carrying out functions of the Managing Committee of the Non-applicant/ respondent no.5 Society or in the alternative from taking any major or financial decision without associating the petitions and justice may be done; (d) The unilateral major or financial decisions taken by the minority respondents no.6 to 12 may be directed to be reviewed by the entire Managing Committee in the presence of the concerned Inspector of the co-operative Societies; (e) The books of the respondents no.5 Society may be directed to be audited by respondent authorities.” 3. Writ Court, after considering the pleadings made available on record by the respective parties, passed consent order directing the respondents to convene a General House in the presence of Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies after following due procedure within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Shri Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that the respondents willfully and intentionally disobeyed the aforesaid judgment and have made all out efforts to defeat the mandate issued by this Court and as such they are liable to be punished for Contempt of Court. Mr.Sood further contended that despite there being specific direction to the respondents to convene a General House in the presence of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, no steps, whatsoever, have been taken till date by concerned person for convening General House, rather respondents in flagrant violation of directions issued by this Court convened meeting of Management to pass an agenda for discussion in the General House meeting, which was not the direction of the Court. 5. As per Mr.Sood, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass an agenda in issue for discussion about termination of membership of two members of Society i.e. S/Shri Shyam Lal and Lal Singh, who were allegedly terminated on 9.11.2015. Mr.Sood further contended that issue with regard to termination of the membership of the petitioners was subject matter of the Civil Writ Petition, wherein this Court, after hearing rival submissions of both the parties, had ordered for convening of General House meeting in the presence of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies after following due procedure. Mr.Sood further contended that there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar i.e. respondent No.1 to approve the agenda made available to him by the Management Committee and as such he is guilty of disobeying the directions contained in the judgment dated 8.9.2016, whereby General House was to be convened in his presence. Lastly, Mr.Sood contended that agenda, if any, was to be discussed in General House and by no stretch of imagination same could be approved by the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. 6. Respondents, by way of separate replies, have submitted that they have highest regard for the orders passed by this Court and by no stretch of imagination they can think of disobeying or flouting the Court’s directions. 6. Respondents, by way of separate replies, have submitted that they have highest regard for the orders passed by this Court and by no stretch of imagination they can think of disobeying or flouting the Court’s directions. Respondents further averred that they have neither willfully nor deliberately disobeyed or flouted the orders passed by this Court but still, if any inconvenience caused to the Court on account of their actions or inactions, they tender unconditional apology for the same at the very outset. 7. Perusal of reply filed by respondent No.1 i.e. Assistant Registrar, clearly suggests that he had no prior intimation with regard to meeting of Managing Committee of Society, wherein as per provisions of Rule 50 (i) and (j) of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971, meeting was convened to discuss and for fixing the date, agenda and venue of the proposed General Body meeting of the Society. As per respondent No.1, on 15.9.2016, he, in terms of directions issued by Registrar, Co-operative Societies Himachal Pradesh, directed the Secretary/President of the Bilaspur J.P. Cement Industries Transport Society (hereinafter referred to as the `Society’) to immediately convene a General Body meeting by following due procedure for ensuring compliance of the judgment dated 8.9.2016 passed by this Court. 8. Perusal of documents placed on record in shape of Annexure R-1 certainly suggest that respondent No.1 called upon President/Secretary of the Society to decide about the date of General Body meeting of the Society in terms of judgment dated 8.9.2016. Similarly, reply having been filed by respondent No.1 also suggests that pursuant to request having been made by the petitioners, he issued a letter to respondent No.3, President/Secretary of Society, to inform him the date of holding Management Committee meeting so that Inspector is authorized to attend the said meeting. 9. After carefully perusing the reply filed by respondent No.1 and documents annexed therewith, this Court is convinced and satisfied that all possible steps, as required by him, were taken to ensure the convening of General House meeting. 9. After carefully perusing the reply filed by respondent No.1 and documents annexed therewith, this Court is convinced and satisfied that all possible steps, as required by him, were taken to ensure the convening of General House meeting. Otherwise also perusal of judgment dated 8.9.2016 nowhere suggests that action, if any, for convening the General House meeting of the concerned Co-operative Society was required to be taken by respondent No.1, rather meeting, as referred above, was to be convened by the Society in the presence of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies after following due procedure within a period as prescribed in the order. Hence, this Court sees no reason to initiate proceedings, if any, against respondent No.1 for non-compliance of judgment dated 8.9.2016. 10. Reply preferred on behalf of respondents No.2 to 8 also suggests that immediately after passing of judgment dated 8.9.2016, steps were taken by the Co-operative Society concerned for convening General House. As per respondents No.2 to 8, since Writ Court, while passing judgment dated 8.9.2016, had not fixed any agenda to be discussed in the General House, Society called the meeting of Managing Committee for deciding the agenda, but petitioners instead of participating in the meeting and proposing agenda in the Managing Committee made all out efforts to frustrate the Managing Committee meeting so that General House meeting as directed by this Court is not held. As per respondents No.2 to 8, petitioners No.1 and 2, who seized to be members of Managing Committee, were also present in the meeting of Managing Committee, wherein agenda for General House was being discussed, but they refused to sign the attendance register. After carefully examining the explanation having been rendered by respondents No.2 to 8, this Court sees no substantial force in the arguments having been advanced by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, that no steps whatsoever, were taken by respondent-Society to ensure the compliance of judgment passed by this Court and efforts were made to defeat the mandate issued by this Court. 11. After bestowing our thoughtful consideration, this Court is of the view that respondents have not willfully disobeyed the judgment passed by this Court, rather they misinterpreted and misread the directions contained in the judgment dated 8.9.2016. 11. After bestowing our thoughtful consideration, this Court is of the view that respondents have not willfully disobeyed the judgment passed by this Court, rather they misinterpreted and misread the directions contained in the judgment dated 8.9.2016. Petitioners herein by way of Writ Petition bearing No.1958/2016 had sought directions to convene the meeting of Managing Committee of respondent No.5 Society in terms of Rules 45 and 48 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 for discussing the no confidence motion passed by the petitioners against the office bearers of the Society in terms of order dated 15.3.2016 passed by respondent No.1 ignoring the observations made in paras 8, 9, 10, and 11 of review petition. 12. Apart from above, petitioners No.1 & 2, who stood terminated from the membership of Society also laid challenge to their termination on the ground that decision, if any, with regard to termination of the member of Society could only be taken by the General House. Since issue in question in the writ petition was with regard to termination of members of Society by the Managing Committee of respondent-Society as well as discussion of no confidence motion by petitioners against all the office bearers of the Society, this Court deemed it fit to dispose of writ petition with the consent of parties to decide the aforesaid issue in the General House meeting to be conducted in the presence of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies after following due procedure. 13. 13. Though we see force in the aforesaid contention made by respondents No.2 to 8 that since there was no agenda fixed by this Court for the discussion of General House, meeting of Managing Committee was required to be convened for fixing the agenda in terms of Rules 50 (i) and (j) of H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, whereby Society is under obligation to discuss and fix the agenda at first instance before fixing the date of General House meeting of the Society, but after carefully perusing the minutes of meeting of Managing Committee held on 25.9.2016 (Annexure C- 2), we are in agreement with the submissions having been made by Shri Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel, that there was no occasion for the Society to discuss issue with regard to termination of members of Society in the meeting of Management Committee because same was required to be discussed and decided in the general meeting of Society as directed by this Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2016. 14. Leaving everything aside, it clearly emerge from the pleadings available on record as well as submissions having been made on behalf of the counsel representing the parties that both the parties are keen to have the meeting of General House and as such this Court without complicating the matter further deems it fit to dispose of the Contempt Petition with the direction to respondent No.1 i.e. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies to ensure convening of meeting of General House strictly in terms of judgment dated 8.9.2016 passed by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order. 15. Needless to say that all the issues as raised in the CWP shall be discussed and decided in the General House meeting as agreed by both the parties at the time of passing of the judgment dated 8.9.2016 strictly following the procedure as laid in bye-laws of the Society. Respondents No.2 to 8 shall render all necessary assistance to respondent No.1 for smooth convening of General House. However, it is made clear that intimation with regard to date on which Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society convenes General House shall be conveyed to all the members of Society by the respondent-Society by written communication. Respondents No.2 to 8 shall render all necessary assistance to respondent No.1 for smooth convening of General House. However, it is made clear that intimation with regard to date on which Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society convenes General House shall be conveyed to all the members of Society by the respondent-Society by written communication. Shri Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior counsel, undertakes that petitioner herein shall make themselves available in the General House meeting on the date to be fixed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. 16. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any reason to interfere in this Contempt Petition and accordingly same is disposed of.