JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant case depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of respondent No. 4 i.e. Andora Agriculture Cooperative Society, who in a most brazen, blatant and defiant manner has flouted and defied not only the mandate of the law but the various directions given under the adjudicatory authorities constituted under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (for short the Act). 2. The facts, as are necessary, for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a Secretary with respondent No. 4 and joined his duties as such on 2.9.1986. In the year, 2004, when the society was being manned by the Administrator, a criminal case came to be instituted against the petitioner vide FIR No. 148 of 2004. The Administrator vide order dated 1.7.2004 ordered the petitioner to remain under suspension till the decision of the case emerging out of the said FIR. On 28.3.2005, another FIR came to be registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 13 of 2005. On the basis of the inquiry conducted in the aforesaid FIRs and submissions of inquiry report the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated vide the order passed by respondent No. 4 on 9.1.2008. 3. This order was assailed by the petitioner before respondent No.2-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, being the appellate authority and the same was set aside vide order dated 7.4.2008. When respondent No. 4 failed to re-engage the petitioner, it was asked by respondent No. 2 vide notice dated 4.1.2012, as to why the management of the society be not superseded. Not being satisfied with the reply by the society, respondent No.2 vide order dated 14.6.2012 ordered the supersession of the committee. 4. This order was again assailed by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2 in appeal being case No. 26/2012, however, the same ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2012. 5. Consequent upon the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2012, directions were given to respondent No. 4 to give joining to the petitioner within three days. However, despite these orders, the petitioner was not permitted to join and the same constrained him to approach this Court by medium of CWP No. 483/2013. However, the said petition was dismissed with the directions to the petitioner to resort to the remedy as available under the provisions of the Act. However, despite these orders, the petitioner was not permitted to join and the same constrained him to approach this Court by medium of CWP No. 483/2013. However, the said petition was dismissed with the directions to the petitioner to resort to the remedy as available under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner approached respondent No. 2, who vide his order dated 26.10.2013 came to a categorical conclusion that respondent No. 4 had failed to comply with the lawful order issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 7.4.2008 (supra) despite having been given sufficient time and respondent No. 3 i.e. the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Una, was directed to issue notice of 15 days to the managing committee of respondent No. 4 to comply with the aforesaid order being a final opportunity and further directed to submit his report within a week on the steps taken by it to implement the aforesaid directions. 6. On 21.11.2013, respondent No. 3 sent a letter to respondent No. 4 with a direction to implement the order dated 7.4.2008 and submit its report. However, respondent No. 4 blatantly refused to comply with the said order constraining respondent No. 3 to send another letter dated 27.1.2014 to respondent No. 2 stating therein that respondent No. 4 was not implementing the lawful command and sought its guidance. This was followed by yet another communication dated 13.2.2014. However, when respondent No. 4 still failed to comply with the order dated 7.4.2008 and the subsequent order dated 26.10.2013 and was therefore issued a show cause notice on 25.6.2014 calling upon it as to why it be not superseded under Section 37 of the Act. This was followed by another letter dated 9.7.2014 whereby the time to file reply to the show cause notice was extended by 15 days. This was followed by yet another communication dated 21.7.2014 whereby time was again extended by fortnight. On 7.8.2014, respondent No. 3 sent yet another communication to respondent No. 2 thereby bringing to his notice that society is not adhering to lawful command. The petitioner at his own end also made certain representations but to no avail. 7. This was followed by yet another communication dated 21.7.2014 whereby time was again extended by fortnight. On 7.8.2014, respondent No. 3 sent yet another communication to respondent No. 2 thereby bringing to his notice that society is not adhering to lawful command. The petitioner at his own end also made certain representations but to no avail. 7. The long and short of the matter is that the petitioner despite repeated orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 as far back in the year, 2008 never came to be engaged, constraining him to file the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- (a) That impugned acts of the respondents above stated, which amount to executive inaction, may very kindly be quashed and set aside with specific and categorical directions to respondents No.2 and 3 implement the orders dated 7.4.2008, 27.9.2012 and 26.10.2013 in its letter & spirit and file compliance report with respect to said aspect of the matter in this Hon’ble Court; (b) That respondents No. 2 and 3 may very kindly be directed to allow the petitioner join his duties as Secretary of respondent No. 4 society, with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay etc. etc., and to deem the petitioner to be in service from the date he was put under suspension and his services were terminated; (c) That the respondents may further be directed to calculate and pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner from the date he was put under suspension and thereafter his services were terminated alongwith interest @ 9% per annum; (d) That respondents No. 2 and 3 may very kindly be directed to see that rule of law is enforced in respondent No.4 society or to take action against the society as per provisions of the Act and Rules either for supersession and in extreme case, liquidation/winding up of the society; 8. Respondent No. 1 State has filed reply, wherein, it has been specifically averred that it is not in any manner involved in the matter as no action or inaction on his part has been challenged in the petition. 9. As regards respondents No. 2 and 3, they have filed a joint reply, wherein, they have expressed their complete helplessness in getting their own orders implemented. 9. As regards respondents No. 2 and 3, they have filed a joint reply, wherein, they have expressed their complete helplessness in getting their own orders implemented. It has been averred that even after resorting to coercive action of superseding the managing committee and appointing an Administrator on 14.6.2012, they were not in a position to have lawful directions of the statutory authorities implemented as the previous managing committee was again reelected and did not permit the petitioner to join. 10. Respondent No. 4 has filed its separate reply, wherein. it has only tried to beat about the bush by leveling personal allegations against the petitioner that he is the owner of one jeep, private car, motor cycle and verka milk agency as also a pepsi cold drink agency in the name of his brother and is also possessed of sufficient property comprising hotel, residential building, agricultural land and other commercial building and shops and would content that since the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement of the funds of the members and the society, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment authored by me in CWP No. 2080 of 2016, titled Nangal Jarialan, Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 6.12.2016, while dealing with the philosophy and concept of cooperative movement observed as under:- 15. At the outset, it may be observed that the very philosophy and the concept of the cooperative movement is impregnable with public interest. A cooperative society is a substitute for self-interest of an individual or a group of individuals for the benefit of the whole community. Therefore, even the general body of the members cannot take any steps which may be derogatory to the promotion of the interests of any one of its members or its employees and the same is necessarily be in accordance with the cooperative principles. Conversely, the general body of the members cannot act in a manner so as to confer undue benefit or advantage in favour of anyone of its members or employees. Conversely, the general body of the members cannot act in a manner so as to confer undue benefit or advantage in favour of anyone of its members or employees. Above all, the society unlike a private individual cannot act as it pleases and the decision taken by the general body has to be in accordance with the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (for short ‘Act’), H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971 (for short ‘Rules’) and the bye-laws of the society. 16. A cooperative society is registered on cooperative principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity. Democratic accountability, mutual trust, fairness, impartiality, unity and agreement amongst its members are some of the cardinal dimensions of the cooperative principles. Therefore, the decision taken by the executive body of the society should enjoy the confidence and must have the backing of majority of its members. 17. Moreover, the cooperative societies are corporations within the meaning of Article 31-A(1)(c) as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daman Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 1985 (2) SCC 670 . The very philosophy and concept of the cooperative movement is impregnable with public interest. Once a person becomes the member of the cooperative society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws. What is a corporation has been considered in the Daman Singh’s case in the following manners:- “5. What is a corporation? In Halsbury’s Laws of England, fourth Edition, Volume 9, Paragraph 1201, it is said, A corporation may be defined as a body of persons (in the case of a corporation aggregate) or an office (in the case of a corporation sole) which is recognized by the law as having a personality which is distinct from the separate personalities of the members of the body or the personality of the individual holder for the time being of the office in question.” 18. A corporation is a substitute for self-interest of an individual or a group of individuals for the benefit of the whole community, therefore, the cooperative movement cannot be permitted to be polluted by certain vested interest at the helm of affairs. 19. In this context, it shall be advantageous to refer to the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Hindurao Balwant Patil & Anr., Vs. 19. In this context, it shall be advantageous to refer to the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Hindurao Balwant Patil & Anr., Vs. Krishnarao Parshuram Patil and Ors., AIR 1982 Bombay 216, wherein it was observed:- “Co-operative movement cannot be permitted to be polluted or choked by internal or individual strike nor it can be permitted to be polluted by party politics. Co-operative capitalism despotism is not co-operation. On the other hand co-operation is a substitute for self interest of an individual or a group of individuals for the benefit of whole community. Therefore, if the society itself while framing and adopting its own code of conduct in the form of bye-laws, which are to be duly approved by the Registrar, has not made any provision for removal of the Chairman and vice Chairman by passing a vote of no confidence, it cannot be said that the step taken by the Society or Registrar in that behalf is not a regulatory one nor is in the interest of the society or the general public. The so-called mandate theory cannot be pushed to ridiculous extremes to convert co-operative movement into an arena or akhada of power politics. Whenever the legislature thought that a person is not fit to continue as a member of the board, specific provisions are made for his removal. A person is elected as Chairman or Vice Chairman for a particular term. His office is controlled by the provisions of the Act……….” 20. At this stage, we may also refer to the decision made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in The Bapauli Co-operative Agricultural Service Society vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1976 P&H 283 , wherein it was observed as under:- “The final authority in a co-operative society does of course vest in the general body of its members or its managing body elected in accordance with its bye-laws as laid down in Section 23 of the Act, but this authority is not absolute and free from restraints. Even the general body of the members cannot take any steps which may be derogatory to the promotion of the economic interests of the members of a society in accordance with co-operative principles; nor can the general body take any decision which may be contrary to the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Even the general body of the members cannot take any steps which may be derogatory to the promotion of the economic interests of the members of a society in accordance with co-operative principles; nor can the general body take any decision which may be contrary to the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. When considered in this light, Section 23 of the Act has to be interpreted in such a manner so that its operation does not set at naught some of the other provisions of the Act. It is settled law that two provisions of a statute have to be read in such a manner that one of them does not necessarily repeal the other. The question of repeal of one provision of a statute by another arises only when two of them are wholly incompatible with one another or if they are read together they would lead to wholly absurd consequences. If on a fair and proper interpretation these two provisions can be reconciled with each other, the Courts of law are under a duty to adopt such an interpretation and to give full effect to the two provisions of the Act instead of holding that one of them is repealed by the other………..” 12. It is more than settled that “rule of law is the basic rule of governance of any civilized policy”. The scheme of the Constitution of India is based on the concept of rule of law. Every one whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. This is not withstanding that whoever the person, however, high, powerful or rich he or she may be is above the law. 13. As observed in Nangal Jarialan, Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Case (supra), the society unlike a private individual cannot act as it pleases and the decision taken by the general body has to be in accordance with the Act, Rules and bye-laws of the society. Therefore, it had no jurisdiction whatsoever to sit over the lawful decisions and directions issued by the respondents from time to time much less defy the same with impunity. 14. Therefore, it had no jurisdiction whatsoever to sit over the lawful decisions and directions issued by the respondents from time to time much less defy the same with impunity. 14. The conclusion that the society has been persistently flouting and disobeying the orders of the statutory authority is writ large, therefore, it is high time that there is a crack down on such blatant defiance and the sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of respondent No. 4 is brought within the framework of law. The action or rather the inaction of the managing committee in not implementing and showing scant regard and respect to the solemn orders of the adjudicatory authorities only reflects upon their unseemingly conduct and attitude that are goarded by a personal ego. Such irresponsible and illegal conduct on their part cannot but earn frown from this Court, which could only be ignored at the cost of jettisoning the dignity, authority and majesty of the adjudicatory authorities. 15. If at all respondent No. 4 felt aggrieved by any of the orders that were passed against it by the various adjudicatory authorities, then the only course open for it was to have assailed the same in accordance with law. It had no business or authority to have sat upon the lawful orders and in a blatant and brazen manner defied the same. This only reflects the scant regard the members of the managing committee of respondent No. 4 have for the law. As already observed, whoever the person or authority, however, high, powerful or rich, he/she may be, is above the law. This Court will be failing in its duty if it does not voice its protest against these brazen acts of lawlessness. 16. It is unfortunate that despite the Act having been enacted in the year, 1968, authorities conferred with the adjudicatory powers under it virtually have no real and concrete powers to have their orders enforced and continue to remain paper tigers without any teeth or claws. It is probably for this reason that the orders are so ethereal, that they can be nullified or eschewed by a simple resolution or strong defiance. 17. It is probably for this reason that the orders are so ethereal, that they can be nullified or eschewed by a simple resolution or strong defiance. 17. It is, therefore, high time the State Government constitute a robust Cooperative Appellate Tribunal as per Section 108 of the Act read with Rule 132 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, capable of effectively and expeditiously deciding disputes so as to ensure that the adjudicatory authorities under the Act are not reduced to mere paper tigers but armed with proper teeth and claws and the efforts put by these authorities are not wasted and the orders are not shelved by defiant Cooperative Societies like respondent No. 4. 18. Accordingly, while allowing this writ petition, this Court directs that, henceforth, all the members of the managing committee of respondent No. 4 from the year 2008 till date are debarred not only from being the members of the governing body of respondent No. 4 society but also debarred from becoming members of the society and are further debarred from forming any new cooperative society or other society for a period of five years. 19. Since, petitioner has been dragged into otherwise avoidable litigation, each member of the managing committee shall pay from their own pocket a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the petitioner towards costs as also damages. Further, in case any of the member of the managing committee has died then this order shall be enforced against his legal representatives. In the event of failure of any of the aforesaid members to deposit this amount, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 20. In addition thereto, respondent No. 2 is directed to forthwith dissolve the managing committee and appoint an administrator, who shall implement orders dated 7.4.2008, 27.9.2012 and 26.10.2013 in its letter and spirit and file compliance report within week of the receipt of this order by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner including seniority, pay etc., as the petitioner was not permitted to join and has since already attained the age of superannuation. 21. The State Government has further directed to consider the creation of a Co-operative Appellate Tribunal in accordance with Section 108 of the Act read with Rule 132 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. 22. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 21. The State Government has further directed to consider the creation of a Co-operative Appellate Tribunal in accordance with Section 108 of the Act read with Rule 132 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. 22. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Let, a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for compliance.