The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order that reinstated a removed Secretary of a cooperative society. The Court held that no good ground was made out to set aside the order, even on the issue of venue for a meeting, and lacking merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1632 of 2014
Petitioner :- Matsgivi Sahakari Samittee Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagandra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List has been revised. Neither the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 nor the learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.
Heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
"(i) Call for record of the case issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2013 passed by respondent no.2, Deputy Director Mats, Sahakari through Director Mats U.P. Lucknow (Annexure No.7)."
It has been averred in the present petition that the petitioner is a registered society in the name and style of Matsjivi Shahakari Samiti Limited Belaukh Chhetra Punchayat-Khasaraha, TahsilBasti, District- Siddhartha Nagar, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner is the President of the society and the respondent no.4 was earlier working as a Secretary of the Society but due to malafide and arbitrariness working of the respondent no.4, a complaint was made by the petitioner along with others against the respondent no.4 before the respondent no.2, pursuant to which, respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.12.2012 and 11.01.2013 directed the respondent no.3 to enquire into the matter and submit its report. The respondent no.3 pursuant to the aforesaid order called general meeting in which charges against the respondent no.4 were proved and a detailed report dated 19.02.2013 was submitted by the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.2. Thereafter, meeting of committee of management was held on 11.04.2013 wherein resolution was passed for removal of the respondent no.4 as a Secretary of the society and in place Sri Ravindra Nath Sahani was appointed as a Secretary of the society which was communicated vide letter dated 16.07.2013 by the
petitioner to the respondent no.2 stating therein that the name of the respondent no.4 with regard to the allotted patta over the ponds may be deleted and in his place the name of the President may be recorded, pursuant to which communication, the name of the President has been directed to be recorded over the pond and thereafter, the bank account was also operated in the name of the Ravindra Nath Sahani as a Secretary. Thereafter, a representation dated 18.07.2013 was moved by the respondent no.4, upon which respondent no.2 vide order dated 19.07.2013 directed the respondent no.3 to enquire into the matter and submit its report. Pursuant to which, respondent no.3 submitted its report to the effect that in a meeting dated 10.02.2013 it was resolved that the petitioner and the respondent no.4 have agreed to work together and in the meeting dated 07.09.2013, it was also found that the allegations levelled against the respondent no.4 was not proved and therefore, the removal of the respondent no.4 was not justified. The respondent no.2 after going through the report of the respondent no.3 passed the order impugned dated 26.09.2013 in which it was noted that the meeting held on 11.04.2013 was unwarranted and uncalled for.
Perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 3 and 4.
The order impugned takes note of the fact that the meeting dated 11.04.2013 was not held in the office of Samiti when in fact, the same was held at an independent place which ought to have been held in the office pursuant to the letter no. 1337/Sa.Anu. Dated 13.12.2012. and therefore, the meeting is not in accordance with the provisions of Rules 95 of U.P. Sahkari Samiti Niyamwati 1968. It has also been noted in the order impugned that it has been apparent from the enquiry report dated 18.09.2013 that in the general body meeting dated 07.09.2013 it was resolved that no allegations against the respondent no.4 was found to be proved and therefore, the meeting dated 11.04.2013 was held to be unwarranted and uncalled for.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as after perusing the order impugned and the averments made in the writ petition and counter affidavit this Court is of the opinion, that no good ground is being made out in quashing the order impugned dated 26.09.2013 passed by the respondent no.2.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2018 JK Yadav
3 issues framed by the court
Whether good ground exists in law to quash the order regarding removal of the Secretary of a cooperative society.
Whether the impugned order violating procedural rules relating to the venue of meetings warrants quashing.
Whether the writ petition lacks merit and can be dismissed without a full trial on the merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Matsgivi Sahakari Samittee
State Of U.P.
Deputy Director Mats, Sahakari
Director Mats U.P.
Respondent No.4 (Secretary)
Shashi Kant Gupta
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
