Dismissed

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and Anr. v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Dec 2021WPA/6067/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an appeal and writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies against a cooperative bank. The court refused to interfere, finding the notice did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction, vagueness, or issuance with a closed mind, as no final decision had been taken yet.

What did the court decide?

The period to submit reply to the show cause notice extended for four weeks from the date.

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and… — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

¶6

PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

¶9

MA/33/2020 IA NO: CAN/1/2021

¶10

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited

¶11

… Appellant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others … Respondents

¶14

For the appellant : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate. Mr. B. Bhattacharya, Mr. V. Bose, Mr. A. Ghatak, Advocates (through virtual mode)

¶15

Ms. Tasneem, Mr. Md. A. Ansari, Ms. D. Chattaraj, Advocates

¶16

For the Administration : Mr. P.M. Mukherjee, Mr. P.K. Das, Advocates (through virtual mode) Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Mr.Ramendu Agarwal, Advocates For the RBI : Mr. Arul Prasanth, Advocate

¶17

¶18

With

¶19

WPA/6067/2020 IA NO: CAN/1/2021

¶20

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr.

¶21

Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. … Petitioners Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others. … Respondents

¶22

For the petitioners : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. Bhattacharya, Mr. V. Bose, Mr. A. Ghatak, Advocates (through virtual mode) Ms. Tasneem, Mr. Md. A. Ansari, Ms. D. Chattaraj, Advocates For the Administration : Mr. P.M. Mukherjee, Mr. P. K. Das, Advocates (through virtual mode) Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Mr.Ramendu Agarwal, Advocates For the RBI : Mr. Arul Prasanth, Advocate Hearing concluded on : December 16, 2021 Judgment on : December 20, 2021

¶23

Debangsu Basak, J.

¶24

An appeal and a writ petition have been heard analogously. Learned counsel of the appearing parties have submitted that the issues involved in WPA/6067/2020 which is

¶25

¶26

the writ petition and the present appeal are similar and that such writ petition be heard by the Appeal Court. They have invited the Appeal Court to hear and dispose of such writ petition along with the appeal.

¶27

Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated March 2, 2020 had disposed of two writ petitions being WP No. 140 of 2019 and WP No. 325 of 2017 along with the connected applications therein. The appellant has, however, preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated March 2, 2020 passed in WP No. 140 of 2019 only.

¶28

Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a cooperative society registered under the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulations, 1973. The appellant has been granted licence by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 22(1) read with Section 56(o) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to commence and carry on banking business. The appellant has faced numerous proceedings from time to time at the behest of the authorities. He has referred to the number of proceedings that the appellant was subjected to from time to time. He has submitted that, in all of such proceedings, the authorities did not find any fault in the functioning of the appellant. He has pointed out that, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued a

¶29

¶30

show cause notice dated February 25, 2019 under Regulation 27 of the Regulations of 1973. The appellant had challenged such show cause notice by way of a writ petition being WP No. 79 of 2019. Such writ petition had been disposed of by an order dated March 8, 2019 holding that such show cause notice was issued with closed and prejudiced mind. However, on the submission of the respondent authorities that the show cause notice dated February 25, 2019 would be withdrawn and if necessary, a fresh show cause notice would be issued, the writ petition was disposed by directing that no further proceeding be taken on the basis of the show cause notice dated February 25, 2019 with liberty being granted to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies had thereafter issued the show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 which is the subject matter of the writ petition being WP No. 140 of 2019. In the writ petition, the High Court had passed interim orders restraining the respondents from giving effect to such show cause notice. Such interim order had been extended from time to time till the disposal of the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order.

¶31

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the language of the first show cause notice dated February 25, 2019 and the second show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 are same excepting the word “alleged” being introduced

¶32

¶33

at numerous places. He had submitted that user of the word “alleged” does not alter the factual situation that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was continuing to act with a closed and prejudiced mind. In fact the second show cause notice and the words used therein only establishes that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was acting with a closed and prejudiced mind. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, mere change in the language of the show cause notice does not take away or cure the closed and prejudiced mind of the Register of the Co-operative Societies. He has relied upon (2010) 13 SCC 427 (Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and others) in support of his contention.

¶34

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has highlighted the multiple proceedings launched by the authorities against the appellant. He has submitted that, not a single complaint has been filed by any member/customer of the appellant with any of the authorities. He has contended that, the Reserve Bank of India and/or the NABARD did not feel it necessary to proceed against the appellant. The multiple proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities against the appellant are abuse/misuse of their powers under the Regulations of 1973 and the rules framed thereunder.

¶35

¶36

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in issuing the show cause notice. He has contended that, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies lacked any jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice. He has submitted that “Co-operative Societies” is enumerated under Entry 32 of List II while “Banking” falls under Entry 45 of List I of the Constitution. The Regulations of 1973 regulates Cooperative Society and that the powers under Regulations of 1973 cannot be used to transgress into the banking business of the appellant. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is doing that through the show cause notice.

¶37

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to Section 27 of the Regulation of 1973. He has submitted that, such Regulation is concerned with the functioning of the appellant as a Cooperative Society and not its banking business. Moreover, the power of the supersession of the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Bank with regard to its banking function vests with the Reserve Bank of India under Section 36 AAA of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 as amended by the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020. According to him, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies through the impugned show cause notice is seeking to usurp the powers of the Reserve

¶38

¶39

Bank of India. He has relied upon (2020) 9 SCC 215 (Pandurang Ganapati Chaugule vs. Vishwasrao Patil MurgudSahakari Bank Limited) in order to highlight the differences between a regular Bank and a Co-operative Society carrying on banking business .

¶40

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the actions taken by the respondent authorities subsequent to the issuance of the impugned show cause notice establishes that they gave a go by to the same. He has contended that the impugned show cause notice was issued for supersession of the Managing Committee elected in the year 2015. The term of the Managing Committee elected in 2015 had come to an end and that elections were held under the aegis of the officers appointed by the respondent authorities. The present Managing Committee has been elected on March 1, 2020. Therefore, since the goal of the impugned show cause notice was achieved by the election subsequent thereto and since the respondent authorities conducted such elections, they have by such action given a go by to the impugned show cause notice. In any event, the impugned show cause notice has become infructuous upon the constitution of the present Managing Committee on March 1, 2020 after fresh elections.

¶41

¶42

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the present Managing Committee cannot be proceeded against and/or superseded for action /inaction of the previous Managing Committee, unless the present Managing Committee is called upon to remedy the breach committed by the previous Managing Committee and is provided at least six months’ time to do so. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon (2013) 7 SCC 25 (State of M. P. and others vs. Sanjay Nagayach and others), (2008) SCC Online Kar 155 ( C. Shivalingaiah and others vs. State of Karnataka and others) and 2009 SCC Online Ker 3321 (The Managing Committee of Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Bank Limited vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies).

¶43

The writ petitioners in the writ petition being WPA/6067/2020 have assailed the notice dated July 10, 2020 issued by the authorities. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that by dint of the parity of the reasoning as in the appeal the impugned notice dated July 10, 2020 should be quashed.

¶44

Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that, the challenge in the writ petition is directed towards a show cause notice. He has submitted that

¶45

¶46

the authorities did not exceed their jurisdiction in issuing the impugned show cause notice. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that ordinarily writ Courts do not interfere with a show cause notice save and except on specific exceptions thereto. The learned Single Judge has correctly held that, the impugned show cause notice does not come within the purview of any of the exceptions for interference with a show cause notice. In any event, the learned Single Judge had allowed the appellant time to submit reply to the show cause notice and to canvas all points raised in the writ petition before the deciding authority. He has submitted that, the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any infirmity. He has distinguished the authorities cited on behalf of the appellants.

¶47

Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent authorities has pointed out that subsequent to the impugned judgment and order and subsequent to the order of the Division Bench passed in the appeal, the authorities had attempted to look into the affairs of the appellant. The appellant has prevented the authorities from doing.

¶48

Both the learned counsel for the appearing parties have submitted that the decision in the appeal will govern the fate of the writ petition.

¶49

¶50

The appellant is a Co-operative Society regulated by the Regulations of 1973. The Reserve Bank of India had granted licence to the appellant to commence and carry on banking business in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The appellant has been carrying on banking business since then.

¶51

The appellant has faced a number of proceedings at the behest of authorities. Prior to the appellant facing the impugned notice, it had faced a show cause notice dated February 25, 2019 which was made the subject matter of challenge in WP No. 79 of 2019. Such writ petition being WP No. 79 of 2019 had been disposed of by a judgment and order dated March 8, 2019 by recording the submission of the learned counsel for the Administration that the respondents shall withdraw such show cause notice and if necessary issue a fresh show cause notice strictly in accordance with law. The Court had granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice in accordance with law.

¶52

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies had thereafter issued the impugned show cause notice dated April 12, 2019. In the impugned show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had alleged at least twenty three counts of misdemeanor against the appellant. The

¶53

¶54

allegations leveled by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies revolves largely around mismanagement of the affairs of the appellant and acts which are prejudicial to the interest of the society and its members, thereby causing probable loss to the appellant. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies had alleged wrong doings with regard to the accounts of the appellant, gross irregularities with regard to loans being sanctioned, reckless spending for unproductive purposes, violating the directives issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Rule 49 of the Rules of 1974 dated February 15, 2018 and other grounds.

¶55

By the letter dated July 10, 2020 issued by the Secretary (Co-operative)-Cum- Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the appellant had been called upon to submit objection to the notice dated April 12, 2019 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies within fifteen days failing which the authorities will presume that the appellant had no reply to give. This letter dated July 10, 2020 has been assailed in WPA/6067/2020.

¶56

The parties have referred to Regulation 27 of the Regulations of 1973 which is as follows:-

¶57

“27. Super-session of committee – (1) if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any co-operative society persistently makes default or it is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Regulation of the rules of bye-laws, or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, may, after giving

¶58

¶59

committee an opportunity to state its objection, if any, by order in writing remove the committee; and

¶60

(a) order fresh election of the committee; or

¶61

(b) appoint one or more administrator, who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order which period may at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however, that the aggregate period dies not exceed three years.

¶62

(2) The Registrar may fix such remuneration for the administrator of administrators as he may think fit and such remunerator shall, be paid out of funds of the co-operative society.

¶63

(3) The administrator shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the society.

¶64

(4) The administrator shall, at the expiry of his term of office, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the society.

¶65

(5) Before taking any action under sub-section (1) in respect of a co-operative society indebted to a credit agency, the Registrar shall consult the credit agency, to which it is indebted regarding such action.”

¶66

Regulation 27 of the Regulation of 1973 has vested the

¶67

Registrar of Co-operative Societies with powers to investigate a committee of Co-operative Society if it is making persistent defaults or is negligent in performance of duties imposed on it by the Regulation of 1973 or the rules or bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members. Regulation 27 of the Regulation of 1973 has enjoined

¶68

¶69

upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies the obligation to give the committee an opportunity to state its objection, if any, prior to deciding on the show cause. If after consideration of the objection the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has formed an opinion on any of the matters specified in Regulation 27(1) then he has been empowered to pass an order in writing remove the committee and order fresh election of committee or appoint one or more administrator to manage the affairs of the society.

¶70

Pandurang Ganapati Chaugule (supra) has dealt with the moot question of applicability of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to the co-operative banks. In doing so, it has delved into the issue whether “co-operative banks”, which are cooperative societies also, are governed by Schedule VII List I Entry 45 or List II Entry 32 of the Constitution of India, and to what extent. It has held as follows:-

¶71

“142.1.(1)(a) The cooperative banks registered under the State legislation and multi-State level cooperative societies registered under the MSCS Act, 2002 with respect to “banking” are governed by the legislation relatable to Schedule VII List I Entry 45 of the Constitution of India.

¶72

142.1.(b) The cooperative banks run by the cooperative societies registered under the State legislation with respect to the aspects of “incorporation, regulation and winding up”, in particular, with respect to the matters which are outside the purview of Schedule VII List I Entry 45 of the Constitution of

¶73

¶74

India, are governed by the said legislation relatable to Schedule VII List II Entry 32 of the Constitution of India.

¶75

142.2 (2) The cooperative banks involved in the activities related to banking are covered within the meaning of “banking company” defined under Section 5(c) read with Section 56(a) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which is a legislation relatable to list I Entry 45. It governs the aspect of “banking” of cooperative banks run by the cooperative societies. The cooperative banks cannot carry on any activity without compliance of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and any other legislation applicable to such banks relatable to “banking” in List I Entry 45 and the RBI Act relatable to Schedule VII List I Entry 38 of the Constitution of India.

¶76

142.3 (3)(a) The cooperative banks under the State legislation and multi-State cooperative banks are “banks” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The recovery is an essential part of banking; as such, the recovery procedure prescribe under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, a legislation relatable to Schedule VII List I Entry 45 to the Constitution of India, is applicable.

¶77

142.4 (3)(b) Parliament has legislative competence under Schedule VII List I Entry 45 of the Constitution of India to provide additional procedures for recovery under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with respect to cooperative banks. The provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(iv-a), of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 adding “ex abundanti cautela”, “a multi-State cooperative bank” is not ultra vires as well as the Notification dated 28-1-2003 issued with respect to the cooperative banks registered under the State legislation.”

¶78

In the facts of the present case, it would be premature to

¶79

pronounce on the interplay of the provisions of the Banking

¶80

¶81

Regulations Act, 1949 and the Regulations of 1973 at this stage as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not arrived at a final decision on the impugned show cause notice as yet. Moreover, in law the appellant is entitled to raise the issue of jurisdiction and the deciding authorities will have to decide on it, if raised.

¶82

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that by reason of the events happening subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has given a go bye to the impugned show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 and/or lost the jurisdiction to form an opinion and pass an order of removal of the committee in terms of Regulation 27 of the Regulation of 1973. It has been contended that, fresh election has been held for formation of the committee and that the committee which was formed in 2015 and in respect of which the impugned second show cause notice issued, was no longer in existence with the appointment of the new committee.

¶83

In Sanjay Nagayach and others (supra) , the Supreme Court has decided the legality of an order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sagar Division, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh superseding the board of directors of District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Panna without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of India as provided under

¶84

¶85

second proviso to Section 53(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Although Section 53(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has similar provisions for removal of board of directors of a Co-operative Societies, such section cannot be said to be pari materia with that of Regulation 27 of the Regulation of 1973. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court has found the action of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to be tainted and not in consonance with the requirement of consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. In that case, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies had passed a final order of supersession after issuance of a show cause notice and consideration of the replies thereto. It has issued general directions in respect of orders of supersession of elected committees which are as follows:-

¶86

“42. Further, we are inclined to give the following general directions in view of the mushrooming of cases in various courts challenging orders of supersession of elected Committees:

¶87

42.1. Supersession of an elected Managing Committee/Board is an exception and be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances and normally elected body be allowed to complete the term for which it is elected.

¶88

42.2. Elected Committee in office be not penalised for the shortcomings or illegalities committed by the previous Committee, unless there is any deliberate inaction in rectifying the illegalities committed by the previous Committees.

¶89

¶90

42.3. Elected Committee in office be given sufficient time, say at least six months, to rectify the defects, if any, pointed out in the audit report with regard to incidents which originated when the previous committee was in office.

¶91

42.4. The Registrar/Joint Registrar are legally obliged to comply with all the statutory formalities, including consultation with the financing banks/controlling banks, etc. Only after getting their view, an opinion be formed as to whether an elected Committee be ousted or not.

¶92

42.5. The Registrar/Joint Registrar should always bear in mind the consequences of an order of supersession which has the effect of not only ousting the Board out of office, but also to disqualify them for standing for election in the succeeding elections. The Registrar/Joint Registrar therefore is duty-bound to exercise his powers bona fide and not on the dictation or direction of those who are in power.

¶93

42.6. The Registrar/Joint Registrar shall not act under political pressure or influence and, if they do, be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and be also held personally liable for the cost of the legal proceedings.

¶94

42.7. Public money is not to be spent by the State Government or the Registrar for unnecessary litigation involving disputes between various factions in a cooperative society. Taxpayers’ money is not expected to be spent for settling those disputes. If found necessary, the same is to be spent from the funds available with the Bank concerned.

¶95

Sanjay Nagayach and others (supra) has not laid down and cannot be read to prescribe that an elected committee in office cannot be penalized for the short comings or the illegalities committed by the previous committee. It has provided that the elected committee should be granted sufficient time to rectify the defects and that, if there is deliberate inaction in rectifying the

¶96

¶97

illegalities committed by the previous committee then the elected committee can be penalized for the short comings or illegalities of the previous committee.

¶98

In the facts of the present case, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has not taken a final decision on the allegations levelled. It has issued a show cause notice to which the appellant is yet to reply. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies as on date has not decided any of the allegations finally and has not formed an opinion that the present committee is required to be superseded. In fact, it has not formed an opinion as to whether there were illegalities or short coming of the previous committee or not. Till such time the Registrar of Cooperative Societies forms such definite opinion, it would be premature for the Court to surmise that such an opinion has been formed and that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is proceeding against an elected committee for short comings and illegalities of the previous committee without affording the present committee reasonable opportunity to correct the short comings and illegalities. Therefore, the contention that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies gave a go bye to the impugned show cause notice by the subsequent elections or lost jurisdiction cannot be accepted.

¶99

¶100

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the present case and the authorities cited has found that the impugned show cause notice cannot be said to have been issued by a person who lacked jurisdiction. The show cause notice cannot be said to have attracted any of the exceptions to the rule of non interference with the show cause notice by Court. The learned Single Judge has allowed the appellant time to file reply to the show cause notice and to raise all points including the point of jurisdiction in its reply.

¶101

The learned Single Judge has also observed that the authorities shall decide the proceeding independent of the observations made by his Lordship and that none of the observations shall have any effect on the veracity and sustainability of the allegations.

¶102

It is trite law that, Courts are slow to interfere with a show

¶103

cause notice as no issues can be said to have been decided at that stage. The rule that Courts are slow to interfere with a show cause notice however, has several exceptions. The Court can and should interfere with a show cause notice if it is substantiated that the show cause notice has been issued without jurisdiction or that the show cause notice is not explicit or clear or does not disclose the basis for the formation of the prima facie opinion

¶104

¶105

thereby preventing the addressee to submit a meaningful reply thereto or where the allegations levelled are vague and/or obscure or when the authorities are proceeding with a closed and prejudiced mind.

¶106

In C. Shivalingaish and others (supra) , the Karnataka High Court has considered the decision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as affirmed by the Appellant Authority to supersede the management committee after issuance of show cause notice and consideration of the reply thereto. In the facts of that case the High Court has held that nothing was on record to establish or show that the directions or warnings were issued by the Government or the Registrar and which of such directions or warnings were violated persistently by the present committee of the society. In such circumstances the High Court had quashed the order of supersession as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In the facts of the present case, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not arrived at the final decision of supersession as yet.

¶107

In Managing Committee of Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Banking Limited (supra) the Kerala High Court has considered a final order of supersession of the Managing Committee passed during the pendency of the writ petition. It has apprised all the

¶108

¶109

charges against the Managing Committee, the reply thereto and the decision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and found that the decision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot be sustained on facts. It has therefore passed an order of quashing the decision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to supersede the managing committee. Again the fact scenario in the present case is different. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not taken the final decision in the present case. A writ Court cannot be called upon to evaluate the veracity of the allegations contained in the show cause notice as the Registrar is yet to take a final decision thereon.

¶110

The impugned show cause notice has several charges which if proved to be correct will affect the financial health of the appellant. Therefore, the allegations if substantiated can come within the clause that committee “commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members” of Regulation 27(1) of the Regulation of 1973. Therefore, if cannot be said that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned show cause notice.

¶111

A closed and prejudiced mind of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is another contention of the appellant which has no substance. True, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued a previous show cause notice which was allowed to be

¶112

¶113

withdrawn in the earlier writ petition. The order passed in the earlier writ petition had reserved the right of the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice which the Registrar of Cooperative Societies did. Same set of allegations have been made against the appellant in the impugned show cause notice as that of the earlier show cause notice. In the earlier show cause notice, none of the allegations leveled against the appellant had been decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Court. The allegations have remained undecided till date. The appellant has not filed any reply to any of the two show cause notices. Therefore, as on date there is nothing on record to evaluate even on a prima facie stage that the allegations made against the appellant have no basis or that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is acting with a closed and prejudiced mind.

¶114

In the facts of the present case, nothing has been placed on behalf of the appellant to substantiate that the impugned show cause notice comes within the parameters of the exceptions for interference of the show cause notice by the Court. The impugned show cause notice cannot be said to be issued by an authority who is lacking jurisdiction. It cannot be read to have been issued with a closed and prejudiced mind. The allegation levelled in the impugned show cause notice cannot to be said to be vague and/or obscure and incapable of being understood.

¶115

¶116

Moreover, the learned Single Judge had exercised the discretion of not entertaining the writ petition. His Lordship has given elaborate reasons for the same. The appellant has not been able to establish that the impugned judgment and order suffers from any infirmity. Therefore, we are not in a position to interfere with the discretion exercised by a writ Court, on appeal.

¶117

In view of the discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. For the ends of justice, we however, extend the period to submit reply to the impugned show cause notice for a period of four weeks from date, failing which the authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The deciding authority will adjudicate upon the issues raised without being influenced or prejudiced by any of the observations made by us herein or by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order in any manner.

¶118

As has been noted above, WPA/6067/2020 is directed against the letter dated July 10, 2020 by which, the appellant was called upon to submit its objection of the notice dated April 12, 2019.

¶119

The letter dated July 10, 2020 had provided fifteen days time to the appellant to submit its reply to the show cause notice

¶120

¶121

dated April 12, 2019 failing which presumption that the appellant has nothing to say in the show cause proceeding would be taken.

¶122

However, since we have extended the time to submit the reply to the show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 for a period of four weeks from date, the time to submit the reply to the show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 as called upon by the letter dated July 10, 2020 stands extended by such period of four weeks from date failing which the authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶123

MA/33/2020 and WPA/6067/2020 along with all connected applications are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

¶124

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)

¶125

I agree.

¶126

( JAY SENGUPTA, J.)

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and Anr. v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and Anr. v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr U N Choudhary Vs the Union of India and Others

The Lieutenant Governor and Others Vs Hotel Seashell and Another

The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. Vs Hotel Seashell

Kartick Saha Vs the State

Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Rishab Mandal (Minor) Vs the State