Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 163 (MAN)

Yumnam Ranjit Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-08-17

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. The present writ petition had been filed assailing the orders dated 28.08.20200 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur dissolving the Board of Manipur Apex Co-operating Marketing Societies Limited (MACMS Ltd.) coupled with a prayer for allowing the Board to continue functioning till completion of its tenure. 2. The facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the petitioners are all elected members of the MACPMS Ltd., which is a Society registered under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976. The present Board of Directors of the society was elected in the special general body meeting held on 22.11.2017 and the term of their office is for the period of 5 years w.e.f. the date of election. 3. During the tenure of office of the present petitioners, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 16.12.2019 constituting a three members committee to enquire into the constitution, working and financial affairs of the MACMS Ltd. under Section 83 of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976. After holding an enquiry, the said committee submitted a report dated 06.01.2020 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies stating, inter-alia, that the Chairman of the Society misapplied, retained, indulged into misefficient, misappropriated the society's fund amounting to rupees sixty-one Lakhs and not maintained records for the period from July, 2019 to November, 2019. On receiving the said report, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, sent a notice dated 06.06.2020 to the Chairman, MACMS Ltd. enclosing therein the said enquiry report and directing to explain within 15 days from the date of issue of the said notice as to why necessary action should not be taken up against him. Copy of the said notice dated 06.06.2020 was also furnished to the Board of Directors of the MACMS Ltd. 4. On receiving the said notice dated 06.06.2020 along with the copy of the enquiry report dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner No. 1, who was the Chairman of the MACMS Ltd., submitted a written reply dated 19.06.2020 under covered of a letter dated 19.06.2020 addressed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur. On receiving the said notice dated 06.06.2020 along with the copy of the enquiry report dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner No. 1, who was the Chairman of the MACMS Ltd., submitted a written reply dated 19.06.2020 under covered of a letter dated 19.06.2020 addressed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur. After considering the written reply submitted by the petitioner No. 1, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Manipur issued the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 thereby dissolving the Board of MACMS Ltd. until further orders and the said order was published in the Manipur Gazette bearing No. 136 dated 01.09.2020 as required under the Rules 62 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977. Having been aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for redressing their grievances. 5. Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised only two grounds in assailing the order dated 28.08.2020 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was given to the petitioners prior to issuance of the impugned order as provided under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules 1977. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same had been issued in violation of the principle of natural justice. The second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976, the Registrar has no power or authority to dissolve the Board of the MACMS Ltd. 6. In connection with the first ground, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rule 62 (2) of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Rule, 1977, it is provided that the Registrar should give an opportunity to the Board or the members concerned to show-cause within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice before taking any action. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case, no notice as contemplated under the aforesaid Act and Rules was given to the petitioners and issued the impugned order thereby dissolving the Board in total contravention of the provisions of Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977 and the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that on this count alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. In connection with the second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners, it has been submitted that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 read with its corresponding Rules 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977 the word 'dissolved' is not mentioned and as such, the Registrar has no power or authority to dissolve the Board of MACMS Ltd. as has been done under the impugned order. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same had been issued illegally and arbitrarily and without any power and jurisdiction. 8. Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submitted that after receiving the enquiry report dated 06.01.2020 submitted by the enquiry committee, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued a notice dated 06.06.2020 enclosing therein the said enquiry report and directing the petitioner No. 1, who was the Chairman of the MACMS Ltd., to explain in writing within 15 days from the date of issue of the said notice as to why necessary action should not be taken up. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the said notice had been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 78(1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rule, 1977. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the said notice had been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 78(1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rule, 1977. It has further been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that a copy of the said notice was also endorsed to the Board of Directors of MACMS Ltd. and that after receiving and considering the written reply submitted by the Chairman of the MACMS Ltd., the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 and published the same in the Manipur Gazette on 01.09.2020 in compliance with the provisions of Rules 62 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976. In view of the above factual position, it has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued the impugned order strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and the provisions of Rules 62 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977 and also in compliance of the principle of natural justice. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the first ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and without any basis and accordingly, not sustainable. 9. It has further been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that under Section 152 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976, there is provisions for filing an appeal against an order passed by the Registrar under Section 78 of the Act to the State Government. In the present case, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition assailing the order dated 28.08.2020 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Manipur under Section 78 of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976 without exhausting the alternative and effective remedy for filing appeal against the impugned order as provided under Section 152 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright as being not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned Government Advocate relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal' reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 wherein, it has been held as under:- '11. In support of his contention, the learned Government Advocate relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal' reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 wherein, it has been held as under:- '11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (see State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.) '15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the stature under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.' 10. Mr. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.' 10. Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 endorsed the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and further submitted that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act 1976, the Registrar is empowered to remove the Board of any society and that such power cannot be diluted or rendered negatory only on account of using the word 'dissolved' instead of the word 'removed' in the impugned order. The learned counsel also submitted that the word 'removed' and 'dissolved' are synonymous and carries or denotes the same meaning and accordingly, the second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners is without any merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 11. This Court have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and also examined the materials available on record. It is undeniably found on record that before issuing the impugned order, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued a notice dated 06.06.2020 to the Chairman, MACMS Ltd. enclosing therein the enquiry report dated 06.01.2020 submitted by the enquiry committee and directing to explain in writing within 15 days from the date of issue of the said notice as to why necessary action should not be taken up against him. A copy of the said notice was also endorsed to the Board of Directors of the MACMS Ltd. In response to the said notice, the Chairman of the MACMS Ltd. submitted a detailed written reply/explanation dated 19.06.2020 under covered of a letter dated 19.06.2020 addressed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur. After examining the said reply, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Manipur issued the impugned order thereby dissolving the Board of MACMS Ltd. until further orders. As the other members of the Managing Director of MACMS Ltd. did not submit any reply to the notice issued by the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, they cannot now claim that they have not been given any notice before issuing the impugned order. As the other members of the Managing Director of MACMS Ltd. did not submit any reply to the notice issued by the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, they cannot now claim that they have not been given any notice before issuing the impugned order. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued the impugned order after giving notice as contemplated under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rule 62 (2) of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Rules, 1977 and also in compliance with the principle of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the first ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is without any merit and the same is not sustainable. 12. So far as the second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is to be noted that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is empowered to remove the Board of any society and this Court is of the considered view that such power of the Registrar cannot be nullified or rendered negatory only for using the word 'dissolved' instead of the word 'removed' while issuing the impugned order. This Court is also of the considered view that the words 'removed' and 'dissolved' are also synonymous and expressed the same meaning. As the Registrar of Cooperative Societies have the power to remove the Board of any societies under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976, this Court did not find any ground or reason for interfering with the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. Parties are to bear their own costs.