Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2841 (ALL)

Meerut Sahkari Avas Samiti v. State of U. P.

2023-12-16

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Manish Kumar Nigam, J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay for the petitioners, Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Mishra and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Additional Housing Commissioner/ Additional Registrar, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (Annexure Nos. 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition) and the impugned orders dated 05.04.2023 and 15.05.2023 passed by the Sahkarita Adhikari (Avas), U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Meerut (Annexure Nos. 5 and 11 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders referred to above and stay its effect and operation and all further proceedings consequent thereupon during the pendency of the writ petition. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the writ petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that Meerut Sahkari Awasi Samiti Ltd, Saket, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) is a Housing Society registered under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1965’). Petitioner no. 1 is the Committee of Management of the Society, petitioner no. 2 is the elected Chairman of the Society and the petitioner no. 3 is the Secretary appointed under Section 31 of the Act of 1965 and as such is the Chief Executive Officer of the Society. The election of the Society was held on 16.02.2023 and the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman was held on 17.02.2023. The term of Committee of Management is five years and therefore, is entitled to continue till February, 2028. At present, the Society is governed by the current model bye-laws issued on 17.03.2021, applicable to all the Cooperative Housing Societies, registered in State of Uttar Pradesh. The Model Bye-Laws are annexed at page no. 41 of the paper book. 4. On 11.05.2023, two orders dated 11.05.2023 were passed by Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar/respondent no. 2 being patrank no. 516 and patrank no. 515. The Model Bye-Laws are annexed at page no. 41 of the paper book. 4. On 11.05.2023, two orders dated 11.05.2023 were passed by Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar/respondent no. 2 being patrank no. 516 and patrank no. 515. By order patrank no. 516 dated 11.05.2023, respondent no. 2 directed the Committee of Management of the Society, in exercise of power under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965, to remove the Chairman of the Society within one month and inform accordingly to respondent no. 2. By the other order patrank no. 515 dated 11.05.2023, respondent no. 2 directed the Committee of Management of the Society to remove the Secretary of the Society within one month and inform him accordingly. Both the orders have been passed on the basis of an enquiry report dated 28.04.2023 submitted by one Hriday Ram, Cooperative Officer (Awas), Meerut (respondent no. 3). The said enquiry was got conducted by respondent no. 2 by order dated 11.04.2023 on a complaint made by a member Atul Kumar Singh (respondent no. 5). He has found the President and Secretary of the Society acting against the interest of the Society and guilty of violation of the provision of the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Society. The orders dated 11.05.2023 are under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent no. 2 has passed an order directing for removal of the Chairman of the Society on 04.07.2023 in exercise of powers under Section 38(2) of the Act of 1965. Copy of the aforesaid order has been brought on record by the petitioners by means of supplementary affidavit filed on 06.07.2023. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that since the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 is not under challenge in the present writ petition, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in considering the merits of the orders impugned. It is further submitted that the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 is appealable and therefore, the petitioners be relegated to the remedy of appeal and the writ petition be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would be raising only jurisdictional issue in relation to the impugned order and therefore the petitioners may not be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal. 8. 2 is appealable and therefore, the petitioners be relegated to the remedy of appeal and the writ petition be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would be raising only jurisdictional issue in relation to the impugned order and therefore the petitioners may not be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal. 8. Both the parties have agreed that this Court may examine the validity of the orders impugned, only on the jurisdictional plank without considering the merits of the orders. For the said reason, counsel for the respondents agreed to argue the case without filing counter affidavit. Accordingly, with consent of the parties, the present petition is being decided finally at the stage of first hearing in view of the third proviso to Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following jurisdictional issues : i. Before passing the order dated 11.05.2023, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to show cause. As such, the orders are non-est in the eyes of law ii. By order dated 11.05.2023, respondent no. 2 has directed the Committee of Management for removal of petitioner nos. 2 & 3 from the office of Chairman and Secretary of the Society in exercise of power under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965. The orders are without jurisdiction as under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965, the Committee of Management has no power of removal. It is only the Society which can pass an order of removal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent made the following submissions : i. Society being a body corporate, act through its officers and final authority of a cooperative Society vests in the general body of its members in general meeting. The management of every Society vests in Committee of Management constituted under Section 29 of the Act of 1965 and the Secretary is the Chief Executive Officer of the Society. Since, removal of Chairman of the Committee of Management and of the Secretary of Society was to be considered, therefore, order was issued to the Committee of Management to take action as envisaged under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965. It would not mean that Committee of Management was directed to remove the president of Society in the meeting of the Committee of Management. ii. It would not mean that Committee of Management was directed to remove the president of Society in the meeting of the Committee of Management. ii. The purpose of the direction to the Committee of Management was to ensure that Committee of Management which is responsible for management of the Society convenes meeting of general body for consideration of removal of the Chairman as well as Secretary of the Society. It cannot be interpreted to mean that direction was to the Committee of Management to itself remove the Chairman and Secretary of the Society as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners. iii. At the stage of order under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965, there is no need to issue show cause notice calling for explanation from the officer sought to be removed. It is only when the general body in exercise of power under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965 considers the removal of the officer, the opportunity is required to be given. As such the orders impugned are not vitiated for want of notice or for non adherence to the principles of natural justice. 11. Before considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant statutory provisions : Section 2(e) defines “Committee of Management” to mean the committee of a co-operative society, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted under Section 29; Section 2(f) of the Act, 1965 defines “Co-operative Society” to mean a Society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act; Section 2(o) defines “Office of a Co-operative Society” to mean the president, vice-president, chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, member of committee of management, treasurer, liquidator, administrator or any other persons employed by co-operative society whether with or without remuneration to carry on the business of the society or to supervise its affairs; Section 9 of the Act, 1965 provides that registration of a Society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered. Section 9 is quoted as under : “9. Section 9 is quoted as under : “9. Co-operative societies to be bodies corporate.-The registration of a Society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, having perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it was constituted.” Section 28 of the Act of 1965 provides that the final authority of a Co-operative Society shall vests in general body of its members. Section 28 is quoted as under : “28. Final authority in co-operative Society.-Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules the final authority of a cooperative Society shall vest in the general body of its members in general meeting: Provided that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, [the final authority shall vest in the delegates of such members elected in the manner prescribed] and assembled in general meeting and in such case all references in this Act, the rules or the bye-laws to the general body and general meeting shall be deemed to be references to the body consisting of such delegates of members and to the general meeting of such delegates.” Section 29 of the Act of 1965 provides for Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society. Section 29 is quoted as under : “29. Committee of Management.-(1) The management of every co-operative Society shall vest in a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. [(2)(a) The term of every Committee of Management shall be five years and the term of elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee.” Section 30 of the Act of 1965 provides for the Chairman and its duties. Section 30 is quoted as under : “30. Chairman. [(2)(a) The term of every Committee of Management shall be five years and the term of elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee.” Section 30 of the Act of 1965 provides for the Chairman and its duties. Section 30 is quoted as under : “30. Chairman. [(1) Every co-operative Society shall have a Chairman and Vice-Chairman elected, nominated or appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and bye-laws.] (2) The Chairman shall be responsible for the control, supervision and guidance of the affairs and business of the Society and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed on him by this Act, the rules, the bye-laws and the resolutions of the committee of the management. When present, he shall, except as otherwise provided in the rules, preside at the meeting of the general body and the committee of management. (3)…. (4)...” Section 31 of the Act of 1965 provides for Secretary of Society. Section 31 is quoted as under : “31. The Secretary, his emoluments and functions.-(1) [Except in the case of an apex Society there shall be a Secretary of every cooperative Society, to be appointed and removable by the Society subject to the provisions of the rules and regulations framed under Sections 121 and 122. Section 31 is quoted as under : “31. The Secretary, his emoluments and functions.-(1) [Except in the case of an apex Society there shall be a Secretary of every cooperative Society, to be appointed and removable by the Society subject to the provisions of the rules and regulations framed under Sections 121 and 122. The emoluments and other conditions of service of the Secretary shall be such as may be prescribed in the bye-laws of the Society made in conformity with the rules and regulations made in this behalf: Provided that where a service for the post of secretaries common to any class of co-operative societies has been created under Section 122-A, the recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions of service of persons appointed to such posts, including persons appointed to such posts before the creation of such service, shall be governed by the provisions of that section and the rules made thereunder.] (2) The Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Society and subject to such control and supervision of the Chairman and the committee of management as may be provided in the rules or the bye-laws of the Society shall - (a) be responsible for the sound management of the business of the Society and its efficient administration; (b) carry on the authorized and normal business of the Society; (c) subject to the provisions of the bye-laws of the Society, operate its accounts and, except where the Society has a cashier or treasurer, handle and keep in his custody its cash balances; (d) sign and authenticate all documents for and on behalf of the Society; (e) be responsible for the proper maintenance of various books and records of the Society and for the correct preparation and timely submission of periodical statements and returns in accordance with this Act, the rules, the byelaws and the instructions of the Registrar or the State Government; (f) convene meetings of the general body, the committee of management and any sub-committee constituted by the committee of management and maintain proper records of such meetings; and (g) perform such other duties and exercise such other powers as may be imposed or conferred on him under the rules or the bye-laws of the Society.” Section 38 of the Act of 1965 provides for removal of an officer of the Co-operative Society. Section 38 is quoted as under : “38. Section 38 is quoted as under : “38. Removal of an officer of a co-operative Society.-(1) If in the opinion of the Registrar, any officer of a co-operative Society has contravened or omitted to comply with, any provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the Society, or has forfeited his right to hold office, the Registrar may, without prejudice to any other action that may or can be taken against him, call upon the Society to remove, within a specified period such officer from the office held by him and where necessary also to disqualify him from holding any office under that Society for a period not exceeding three years, whereupon the Society shall, after affording opportunity of being heard to the officer concerned, pass such orders as it may deem fit. [Provided that on the request of the Reserve Bank of India the competent authority shall remove a director or the Secretary/chief executive officer of a Central Co-operative Bank or the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Bank, who do not fulfill the criteria stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India after giving him an opportunity of being heard.] (2) On the failure of the Society to take action under sub-section (1), the Registrar may, after affording opportunity of being heard to the officer and for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the person and the Society concerned, remove, or remove and disqualify for a period not exceeding three years, the officer from holding any office under that Society. (3) An officer removed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall with effect from the date of communication of the order, cease to hold the office and, if disqualified, shall not be eligible to hold any office under that Society for the period specified in the order.” Section 98 of the Act of 1965 provides for appeal against the order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Act, 1965, removing or disqualifying any member of a Society, which is quoted as under : “98. Appeal against the awards, orders and decisions.-(1) An appeal against- (a)…., (b)…., (c)…. (d) an order of the Registrar under sub-section(2) of Section 27 expelling or removing a member or under sub-section (2) of Section 38 removing or disqualifying any officer of a co-operative Society; (e)…..,(f)……,(g)…..,(h)…..,(I)……,(j)…..,(k)…..,(l)….., (m)….,(n)…... Appeal against the awards, orders and decisions.-(1) An appeal against- (a)…., (b)…., (c)…. (d) an order of the Registrar under sub-section(2) of Section 27 expelling or removing a member or under sub-section (2) of Section 38 removing or disqualifying any officer of a co-operative Society; (e)…..,(f)……,(g)…..,(h)…..,(I)……,(j)…..,(k)…..,(l)….., (m)….,(n)…... (2) An appeal under [clauses (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (k) and (l) of subsection (1) shall be preferred to the Tribunal, and an appeal under [clauses (a), (b), (h), (i), (j), (m) and (n) of the said sub-section shall be preferred- (a) if the decision or the order was made by the Registrar, to the State Government; or (b) if the decision or order or award was made by any other person or authority, to the Registrar. [(c) if the order or award was made on a dispute relating to an election, to the Tribunal].” 12. Rule 454 of the U.P. Co-operative Society Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1968’) provides for removal of member of the society. Rule 454 of Rules of 1968 is quoted as under : “454. It shall be the duty of the Committee of Management of a co-operative society to ensure that no person incurring any of the disqualifications continues to hold office of a member of the Committee of Management. As soon as the fact that a member is subject to any disqualification whether it was incurred prior or subsequent to his being such member, comes to the knowledge of the Committee of Management, the committee shall consider the matter in a meeting to be called for the purpose. A copy of the agenda of such meeting shall be served on the member (against whom action is proposed) either personally or by registered (acknowledgment due) post. Where resolution for removal of the person concerned from the membership of the committee has been passed for reasons of such disqualifications a copy of such resolution shall also be sent to the person concerned by registered (acknowledgment due) post and thereupon such member shall not be allowed to attend any meeting of the Committee of Management or to function as the member of the Committee of Management in any other way. The office held by such member shall be declared vacant. The office held by such member shall be declared vacant. If that person feels aggrieved by such action, he may, within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice, seek arbitration under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.” 13. The scope of power of Registrar under Section 38 has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Vandana Varma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (9) ADJ 125 (FB). The issue arose while considering the question as to whether approval/sanction of Registrar is required by the Committee of Management under Section 38 (1) for proceeding under Rule 454. It has been held that : “38. A bare perusal of section 38 of U.P. Act, 1965 shows that Registrar, if forms an opinion, that an "Officer" of a Co-operative Society has contravened or omitted to comply with any provision of U.P. Act, 1965 or Rules framed thereunder or Bye-laws of the Society or has forfeited his right to hold office, he may call upon the Society to remove such officer within a specified period from the office. If necessary, Registrar shall also call upon the Society to disqualify such "Officer" from holding any office under that Society for a period not exceeding three years. When such direction is issued by Registrar, the Society is under an obligation to pass such order as is necessary but before passing such order principles of natural justice shall be complied with and the "Officer" concerned shall be given an opportunity of hearing by the Society. 39. Section 38(1)……..contemplates a direction from Registrar to Society concerned to do the needful when the conditions, as noticed above, are satisfied that the "Officer" concerned has not acted in accordance with Statutes or otherwise has forfeited his right to hold office and it would then be an obligation of the Society to comply the said direction. 41……...when Society acts under sub-section (1) of Section 38, it gets jurisdiction from an order/direction issued by Registrar himself to take such action. 41……...when Society acts under sub-section (1) of Section 38, it gets jurisdiction from an order/direction issued by Registrar himself to take such action. This is a supervisory/administrative control of Registrar over the Management of Co-operative Society so that an "Officer" of Society, if not functioning within the four corners of the Statute or otherwise, has forfeited his right to hold office, such person shall not be allowed to continue to hold office, and, at the first instance, Society itself should remove him and if Society fails, then it shall be done by Registrar himself.” 14. The Full Bench has also explained the difference in scope of Section 38 and Rule 454 as follows : 43. …….There is no need to read this provision in conjunction with Section 38 or to hold that Rule 454 is controlled by Section 38. In fact, both the provisions are independent in their intent. Where a person holding office of member of Committee of Management, has incurred any disqualification and continued to hold office and no direction has been received from Registrar under Section 38(1), still there is an obligation upon Committee of Management of Co-operative Society to ensure that such erring and disqualified person is not permitted to hold office of member of Committee of Management, any longer…...” 49. Section 38 talks of a situation where Committee of Management of a Society, may be for the reasons of lack of knowledge, or otherwise, has not acted against a person, incurring disqualification to hold office of member of Committee of Management, then Registrar may issue direction under Section 38(1)and when such a direction is issued, then Co-operative Society shall be under an obligation to proceed accordingly. Section 38 can be resorted by Registrar even to such contingencies as are not within the ambit of Rule 454 for causing removal; and/or, removal and disqualification, of a member of Co-operative Society if the circumstances specified under Section 38(1), namely, contravention of provisions of U.P. Act, 1965 or Rules framed thereunder or Bye-laws of the Society or omission to comply with certain statutory obligations provided in such Act, Rules or Bye-laws is found. 51. 51. Thus both the provisions i.e. Section 38 and Rule 454 are independent, though contemplate an action against Member of Committee of Management, by the Society but in different manner and apparently it appears to be overlapping but on deeper scrutiny, we do not find any such overlapping. On the contrary, there are apparent distinctions inasmuch as under Rule 454 action against Member of Committee of Management is contemplated when he suffers a disqualification and on removal, office shall be rendered vacant while section 38 talks of a limited duration only. 56. These distinctions leave no manner of doubt in our mind that neither Section 38 controls Rule 454, nor the two provisions are overlapping, nor there is any reason to read Rule 454 as supplementing Section 38, nor to read Rule 454 as subordinate to Section 38…….” 15. It flows from the Full Bench judgment that the power under Section 38(1) is with the general body of the Society and not the Committee of Management. The general body of the Society gets invested with the power under Section 38(1) only when direction is issued by the Registrar to remove any officer or to remove and disqualify him from holding any office under the Society. Upon being so directed by the Registrar, the Society is obliged to follow the direction of the Registrar. The Society shall afford opportunity of hearing to the officer concerned and pass such order as it may deem fit. On failure of the Society to take action under sub-section (1), the Registrar has discretion, after affording opportunity of being heard to the officer and for reasons to be recorded, remove and disqualify the officer for a period not exceeding three years. While the Society is obliged to follow the direction of the Registrar while acting under Section 38(1), the Registrar has ample discretion to remove or not to remove the officer while exercising powers under sub-section (2) of Section 38. 16. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in the present case, the orders impugned are not happily worded but since the same has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 38(1) of Act of 1965, no interpretation other than that the direction was for the Committee of Management to convene a meeting of the Society to consider the mandate given by the Registrar, can be given. 17. 17. On the other hand, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no such intention can be read in the orders impugned as there was no impediment for Registrar to himself call meeting of the general body for consideration of the removal of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners further contented that under Section 35 of the Act of 1965 read with Rule 118 of Rules of 1968, the Registrar can call a meeting of the general body of the Society and there was no occasion for him to direct the Committee of Management to call the meeting as contended by learned counsel for the respondents. Section 35 of the Act of 1965 is quoted as under : “35. Supersession or suspension of Committee of Management.-[(1) Where in the opinion of the Registrar the Committee of Management of any Cooperative Society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws of the Society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, has failed to conduct the election in accordance with the provisions of this Act before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar after affording the Committee of Management a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the General Body of the Society in a general meeting called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order in writing, supersede the Committee of Management: Provided that where under the prescribed circumstances it is not feasible to convene a general meeting of the General Body of the Society, the Registrar may dispense with the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the General Body of the Society.] 2…… 3….. 4…. 5…..” Rule 118 of the Rules of 1968 is quoted as under : “118. 4…. 5…..” Rule 118 of the Rules of 1968 is quoted as under : “118. For the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the general body of a co-operative Society under sub-section (1) of Section 35, the Registrar shall call a general meeting of the general body of the Society, for which purpose he shall issue a notice to the members of the general body whose names have been intimated to him by the Society or ascertained by him from the records. Non-receipt of the notice by any members shall not invalidate the proceedings of such meeting.” 18. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived as Section 35 of the Act of 1965 contemplates supersession of the Committee of Management and not the removal of any individual officer or member of the Committee of Management as per the provision prescribed under the aforesaid section. Rule 118 of the Rules of 1968 is only applicable for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the general body of a co-operative Society under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Act of 1965 and empowers the Registrar to call a general meeting of the Society for the aforesaid purpose. Generally, the power to convene a meeting lies with the Committee of Management. 19. Section 33 of the Act of 1965 provides that Committee of Management shall call a general meeting of general body of the Society after the receipt of requisition in writing from the Registrar or from at least 1/5 members of the general body of the Society. Section 33 of the Act of 1965 is quoted as under : “33. Other general meeting.-(1) The Committee of Management may as often as may be necessary for the transaction of business of the co-operative Society call a general meeting of the general body of the Society (to be called ordinary general meeting). (2) The Committee of Management shall call a general meeting of the general body of the Society (to be called extraordinary general meeting) within one month after the receipt of a requisition in writing from the Registrar or from at least one-fifth of the members of the general body of the Society. (2) The Committee of Management shall call a general meeting of the general body of the Society (to be called extraordinary general meeting) within one month after the receipt of a requisition in writing from the Registrar or from at least one-fifth of the members of the general body of the Society. In default of the Committee of Management to call meeting, the Registrar or any person duly authorized by him in this behalf shall have the power to call the extraordinary general meeting at such place and time as he may direct.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Section 38 (1) of the Act of 1965 does not contemplate for calling a meeting of the general body at the behest of Registrar and the same can only be called by the Committee of Management. Since, in the contemplated meeting, removal of Chairman and Secretary was to be considered, therefore, the Registrar has addressed the Committee of Management instead of Chairman or Secretary of Committee of Management to proceed under Section 38 and remove their officers. 21. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no direction can be issued by Registrar to the Committee of Management to exercise power under Rule 454 of Rules of 1968, it has no force. It has been specifically mentioned in the orders that the directions are issued under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965 and not under Section 454 of the Rules of 1968. It is correct that the impugned orders are not very happily worded. It would have been better if the Registrar would have further elaborated that the Committee of Management was required to convene meeting of the general body of the Society to remove the President and Secretary. However, since the orders specifically directs the management to proceed under Section 38 (1) of the Act, it would only mean that the procedure provided thereunder was to be followed. The Committee of Management of the Society, in whom the power of management vests, was under obligation to call meeting of the general body of the Society for considering the directive of the Registrar. It would not mean that the Registrar had, thereby, conferred power on the Committee of Management, which it does not possess under Section 38(1). The argument, though attractive, has no force and is rejected. 22. It would not mean that the Registrar had, thereby, conferred power on the Committee of Management, which it does not possess under Section 38(1). The argument, though attractive, has no force and is rejected. 22. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing the orders impugned, no notice was issued to the petitioners, therefore, impugned orders are non-est, it is also not sustainable in law. The power under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965 is a supervisory power/administrative control of the Registrar over management of the cooperative Society, so that an officer of the Society, if not functioning within four corners of the statute or otherwise has forfeited his right to hold his office, shall not be allowed to continue to hold his office and at the first instance the Society should remove him and if the Society fails, it shall be done by the Registrar himself. 23. Section 38, when we read it in its entirety we find that when action is initiated under sub-clause (1) of Section 38 by the Registrar by giving direction to the Society, it is the Society which has to take action after affording opportunity of being heard to the officer concerned. At this stage, the Registrar has nothing to do except for calling upon the Society to consider the action proposed and therefore, there is no requirement of giving notice or providing for observance of principle of natural justice. It is only the Society which is required to give opportunity of hearing to the officer concerned as the decision, if any, is to be taken by the Society itself and not by the Registrar. 24. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 talks of the situation where despite direction given by Registrar, Society failed to comply with such direction and did not take any action against the "Officer" concerned, who is rendered disqualified to hold the office. In such eventuality, when Society has failed, sub-section (2) of Section 38 confers power upon Registrar to take action himself and to disqualify, remove or both, such "Officer" from the office. Under sub-section (2) of Section 38, when Registrar takes action on its own, he has to observe the principles of natural justice i.e. afford opportunity of hearing to "Officer" concerned and thereafter pass order which must be a reasoned one. 25. Under sub-section (2) of Section 38, when Registrar takes action on its own, he has to observe the principles of natural justice i.e. afford opportunity of hearing to "Officer" concerned and thereafter pass order which must be a reasoned one. 25. It is only in the second case, as contemplated in sub clause (2) of Section 38 where the Society fails to take any action, and the Registrar himself exercises the power of removal of the erring officer of the cooperative Society, sub clause (2) of Section 38 of the Act of 1965, stipulates that opportunity is to be given to the officer concerned. 26. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the Registrar was not required to afford hearing to the officers at the stage of issuing direction to the Committee of Management to convene the meeting of general body to consider the removal of Chairman and the Secretary in accordance with provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 1965. 27. At the bar, judgment passed by this Court in case of Prabhakar Dwivedi and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (2) ADJ 396 was cited. Therein, the Court was dealing with Section 58, 65 and 68 of Act of 1965 and Rules 144 and 453(1)(f) of the Rules of 1968 and has not considered the scope of Section 38(1) of the Act of 1965. The said judgment is not of any help and is not applicable to the controversy in hand. 28. We thus find no merit in the writ petition. 29. Learned counsel for the parties admit that after passing of the orders impugned, another order has been passed on 04.07.2023 by Registrar removing the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 38(2) of the Act of 1965. The aforesaid order is not under challenge before us. The petitioners also have an alternative remedy of challenging the same before the tribunal in view of Section 98(1)(d) of the Act of 1965. 30. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge the final order dated 04.07.2023 passed under Section 38(2) of the Act of 1965 in appeal before the tribunal under Section 98(1)(d) of the Act of 1965, if not already challenged. 31. 30. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge the final order dated 04.07.2023 passed under Section 38(2) of the Act of 1965 in appeal before the tribunal under Section 98(1)(d) of the Act of 1965, if not already challenged. 31. In case, such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered on merits by the tribunal without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this judgment. 32. With these observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.