Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 238 (JHR)

Shankar Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-02

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
ORDER : The writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2015. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing notices as contained in letters nos. 161 and 162 dated 13.03.2015 issued by the respondent no. 5 – Chairman of Gidhini PACS. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notices as contained in letter nos. 165 and 166 dated 06.04.2015 issued by the respondent no. 5. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the enquiry report as contained in letter no. 182 dated 30.03.2016 submitted by the respondent no. 4 – the District Co-operative Officer, Deoghar to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fund), Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 5 issued the impugned notices as contained in letter nos. 161 and 162 dated 13.03.2015 to the petitioners purportedly under Clause 12(a) and 12(c) of the Bye-laws of the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS), Gidhini without complain from any corner against them. It is further submitted that before issuance of impugned notices dated 13.03.2015 to the petitioners, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the respondent no. 5. Nevertheless, subsequent to issuance of the said notices, the petitioners submitted their respective replies to the respondent no. 5 through speed post on 17.04.2015 denying the allegations made in the said letters. However, most arbitrarily, the respondent no. 5, vide letter nos. 176 and 177 dated 17.06.2015 returned the petitioners’ share capital in the said PACS. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that vide impugned notices as contained in letter nos. 165 and 166 dated 06.04.2015, the petitioners have been removed from the membership of the PACS, Gidhini only due to enmity with some of the members of the said PACS that too, concerning the earlier election of the managing committee. Though the petitioners challenged the letter nos. 161 and 162 dated 13.03.2015 as well as letter nos. 165 and 166 dated 06.04.2015 before the respondent no. 2 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 2015, however, the said case was dismissed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 25.10.2016 primarily relying on the enquiry report dated 30.03.2016 submitted by the respondent no. 4. 161 and 162 dated 13.03.2015 as well as letter nos. 165 and 166 dated 06.04.2015 before the respondent no. 2 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 2015, however, the said case was dismissed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 25.10.2016 primarily relying on the enquiry report dated 30.03.2016 submitted by the respondent no. 4. The said order of the respondent no. 2 itself indicates that there has been no independent application of mind by the respondent no. 2, rather the same has passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the grounds taken by the petitioners in their respective reply. 3. Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC-III appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6, jointly submit that the petitioners’ membership from the Gidhini PACS has been cancelled due to the reason that they have been found indulged in such activities which were detrimental to the interest of the said PACS. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 while passing the order dated 25.10.2016 has duly considered the fact that the petitioners were provided adequate opportunity of hearing before removing them from the membership of the said PACS and hence, the said order does not require any interference of this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 justifying the action taken by the managing committee of the concerned PACS, yet the copy of minutes of meeting of the executive committee dated 18.02.2015 has not been brought on record in which the alleged resolution no. 12 was passed to remove the petitioners from the membership of Gidhini PACS purportedly under Clause 12(a) and 12(c) of the Bye-laws of the said PACS. The impugned letter nos. 165 and 166 dated 06.04.2015 issued to the petitioners suggest that they were removed from the membership of the concerned PACS on the ground of certain activities which were against the interest of the said PACS. However, there is nothing on record particularly in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to substantiate as to which activities of the petitioners were treated against/detrimental to the interest of the said PACS. However, there is nothing on record particularly in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to substantiate as to which activities of the petitioners were treated against/detrimental to the interest of the said PACS. Moreover, the respondent no. 2, while passing the impugned order dated 25.10.2016, has relied on the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 4 on 30.03.2016, however, on perusal of the said enquiry report, it would be evident that except recording the statements of some of the members of the managing committee of Gidhini PACS to the extent that the petitioners were involved in the activities against the interest of the said PACS, the same does not specify nature of such activities. 5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the very foundation of the action initiated against the petitioners is vague. None of the impugned letters suggest that the petitioners were involved in any financial irregularities or any such specific activity which can be said to be against the interest of the said PACS. A vague allegation cannot be the basis for removal of the petitioners from the primary membership of the PACS. 6. Hence, the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2015, notices as contained in letter nos. 161 and 162 dated 13.03.2015 as well as notices as contained in letter nos. 165 and 166 dated 06.04.2015 are hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are directed to restore the primary membership of the petitioners in Gidhini PACS after observing the required formalities. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.