Quashed

R.K.Huda and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2010CWP/15165/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order removing the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society, holding it illegal for violating Section 34 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act due to lack of notice, hearing, and failure to establish persistent default.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3.9.2009 setting aside the Managing Committee of the Society is quashed set aside and the Registrar is liable to pay costs of Rs.20000/-.

R.K.Huda and Ors. Vs Assistant Registrar and… — Cooperative Societies | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 15165 of 2009(O&M) 1

¶2

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 15165 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 24-09-2010

R.K.Huda and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr.S.S.Dalal , Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent nos. 1 and 2

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

This petition is directed against order dated 3.9.2009 Annexure P-5 passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon.

¶14

By virtue of the impugned order the Managing Committee of the petitioners' Society has been removed pursuant to the powers exercised by the respondent no.1-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon under Section 35 (1) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and a Board of Administrators has been appointed for running day to day work of the society for a period of six months. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned action was taken without complying with Section 34 of the Act.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed their response to the petition.

¶16

CWP No. 15165 of 2009(O&M) 2

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.

¶18

The impugned order (Annexure P-5) has the effect of the removal of the entire Managing Committee of the Society and the reason which has been given out therein for taking recourse to such an action by the respondent no.1 is that the Managing committee failed to respond to the prayer made by one Sh.Vishal Bharat for giving information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶19

In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is palpably erroneous, arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside for two reasons; firstly that it has been passed in complete violation of Section 34 of the Act and secondly, that the alleged mis-conduct of the Managing Committee is not the one which is visualized under Section 34 of the Act.

¶20

Section 34 of the Act is extracted hereunder for ready

¶21

reference:-

¶22

“34 Removal of committee- (1) If in the opinion of the Registrar, a committee persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, the Registrar may after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing, remove the committee, and order fresh election of the committee or appoint administrators in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.

¶23

Provided that the appointment of administrators shall be for a

¶24

CWP No. 15165 of 2009(O&M) 3

¶25

period of one year which may be extended from time to time upto three years.”

¶26

It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid Section that before resorting to removal of a Committee, the Registrar has to formulate an opinion that the management of the Committee has defaulted persistently and by its conduct has shown repeated negligence in the performance of its duties imposed upon it by the Act or Rules or Bye-laws of the Committee and its persistent act or action is prejudicial to the interest of the Society. Once such an opinion is formulated then it has to be reflected in the notice given to the Society. Even then the action on the basis of such opinion has to be taken after considering the objections of the Managing Committee. The procedure as visualized is that notice is to be issued to the Managing Committee in the first instance highlighting the persistent default which has come to the notice of the Registrar, who may after considering objections formulate such an opinion to remove the committee.

¶27

If the facts of the instant case are to be seen then only single default referred to in the impugned order is the non-supply of an information to an applicant under the Right to Information Act. No notice was issued to the Managing Committee and neither was their objection sought and likewise no opinion is visible from the impugned order that the action of the committee in not supplying the information to an applicant under the Right to Information Act either amounts to persistent default or such an act is prejudicial to the interest of the members of the Society. If a person does not supply the information under the Right to Information Act he renders himself liable for action under the said Act

¶28

CWP No. 15165 of 2009(O&M) 4

¶29

itself. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is patently illegal and violative of principles of natural justice when no notice and hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 states that remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners should have relegated to such remedy.

¶31

The contention is to be noticed only to be rejected. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrariness is writ large on the face of it, I am of the opinion that respondent no.1 - Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction while passing a perverse order and meddling with the affairs of the committee without any justifiable reason. As a Registrar, Cooperative Societies he is not only expected to be conversant with the law but also expected to ensure the smooth running of the Cooperative Societies and not to act in a manner which impedes the functioning of a Society.

¶32

For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside with costs of Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited in the funds of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Gurgaon. The costs shall be recovered from the pocket of Mr. Devender Beniwal, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon.

¶33

Let the receipt of the deposit of the costs be placed on the file within one month from today. The District Judge, Gurgaon shall send a report of the compliance of the order by the Assistant

¶34

CWP No. 15165 of 2009(O&M) 5

¶35

Registrar mentioned above to the Court.

¶36

September 24, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

R.K.Huda and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K.Huda and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Charan etc. Vs State of Haryana

Prem Chand Vs Dharam Chand & Others

Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Comp. Ltd. Vs Madhvi @ Mamta and Ors.

Roshni and Anr. Vs Manoj and Ors.

Ravinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Amardeep Singh Vs Direcotrate of Revenue Intelligence