Dismissed

Ajay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Dec 2021CW/9856/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench dismissed writ petitions challenging the dissolution of a cooperative society. The court held that despite allegations of irregularities and non-production of documents by petitioners, sufficient opportunity for hearing was provided. The managing committee was found to be in continuing default regarding managerial age limits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions failed; impugned dissolution order upheld; stay petitions disposed of.

Ajay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Cooperative Societies | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 6)

¶2

[CW-9856/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9856/2021

¶5

Ajay Singh S/o Shri Jaipal Singh Rajput, Aged About 49 Years, Chairman, Debari Lamps, Resident Of 65, Aravali Complex, Kalkamata Road, Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

¶9

Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

¶10

Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur.

¶11

Debari Vrahad Krishi Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Udaipur Through Its Administrator.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12760/2021

¶15

Gera @ Geru Lal S/o Shri Kika Ji, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Nala Debari, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

¶19

Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

¶20

Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur.

¶21

Debari Vrahad Krishi Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Limited Udaipur, Through Its Administrator.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra Mr. Arvind Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore Mr. Rajat Dave

¶24

(2 of 6)

¶25

[CW-9856/2021]

¶26

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶27

Order

¶28

16/12/2021

¶29

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.07.2021 issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur Division, Udaipur (respondent No.2), whereby the Managing Committee of the Society (Debari Vrahad Krishi Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Udaipur - respondent No.4) in which petitioners were Chairman/Member has been dissolved and an administrator has been appointed.

¶30

Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has been passed by respondent No.2 without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the society/Members of the Managing Committee.

¶31

In respect of the contention aforesaid, he informed that the society came to receive a notice dated 17.02.2021 in which reliance was placed upon letter dated 03.11.2020 issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur and various other directions and circulars, and in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners, copies of the same were not provided. Thereafter the order impugned came to be passed on 19.07.2021 while noticing that the petitioners have failed to appear and file reply to the said notices.

¶32

Learned counsel argued that on petitioners’ request, the respondent No.2 had issued a direction to the respondent No.3 to provide copies of the letter No.2142, dated 03.11.2020 and all relevant circulars and directions to the Chairman of the petitioners’ society as is evident from note No.2 appended with the communication dated 17.03.2021, yet, the documents were

¶33

(3 of 6)

¶34

[CW-9856/2021]

¶35

not made available to the petitioners for which, they failed to file reply and defend their cause.

¶36

Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State on the other hand submitted that firstly the circulars referred to in the notices were nothing but instructions to comply with the statutory provisions including the provisions of Service Conditions 2008. He highlighted that though the age of retirement of a Manager, Cooperative Society is 60 years, yet the petitioners have continued to the Manager of the society even upto the age of 65 years apart from committing various other irregularities.

¶37

Court’s attention was invited towards letter of the Deputy Registrar dated 19.07.2021 sent to the respondent No.2, inter alia, informing that despite the letter dated 06.07.2021, the petitioners did not turn up to collect the relevant documents. 7. It was argued that the petitioners themselves are to be blamed, inasmuch as they have not even cared to file a formal reply in relation to the allegations made in the notices, which otherwise were not dependent upon any departmental circular or documents.

¶38

Pointing towards the issues raised in the notice dated 17.02.2021, learned counsel argued that none of the issues on which reply was sought, required any copies of the circulars while iterating that the respondents were always willing to provide copies of the documents as demanded by the petitioners.

¶39

It was also argued that the petitioners are guilty of swindling the society’s funds to the tune of lacs of rupees so also violating the provisions by permitting the Manager of the society to continue even after crossing the age of superannuation and not

¶40

(4 of 6)

¶41

[CW-9856/2021]

¶42

providing record/relevant documents to the competent authority, when enquiry under section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’) was initiated against the petitioners’ society.

¶43

In rejoinder, Mr. Bohra submitted that maybe, the petitioners did not file reply, but the respondent No.2 was in any case required to record his finding regarding violation or breaches (if any). Without doing so, the respondent No.2 has dissolved the society merely because the members of the Managing Committee of the society did not appear and respond.

¶44

Mr. Bohra relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Geeta Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2014(3) WLC (Raj.) 13] and in case of Man Mal Sharma Vs. Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar [AIR 1999 Rajasthan 13] . 12. Heard.

¶45

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that questions or issues, explanation whereof was sought by respondent No.2 & 3, related to general working of the society and the records for those issues were very much available with the petitioners.

¶46

The requirement of copies of the circular and the letter dated 03.11.2020 issued by the Additional Registrar was simply a subterfuge to thwart or prolong the proceedings of section 30 of the Act of 2001.

¶47

That apart, when the respondents have invited the petitioners to collect the copies, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have approached the Additional Registrar and obtain

¶48

(5 of 6)

¶49

[CW-9856/2021]

¶50

copies of the relevant documents, which for the reasons best known to them, they chose not to do.

¶51

A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 clearly shows that the Additional Registrar was having all relevant information/material with him, including the information that the Manager of the society has been allowed to work upto 65 years contrary to the statutory provisions. 17. On the basis of the record available, the Additional Registrar has recorded a finding that the Members of the society have devoured a huge amount of Rs.34,75,737/- by disbursing the amount to the Manager apart from committing other glaring irregularities.

¶52

Moving on to the judgments cited; in the Division Bench judgment in case of Geeta Patel (supra), it has been held by the Division Bench that before dissolution, reasonable opportunity of hearing should be given.

¶53

Such proposition of law cannot be disputed but if the facts of the present case are considered, this Court finds that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. They themselves have chosen not to avail the same. Therefore, no advantage can be drawn by the petitioners from the Division Bench judgment of Smt. Geeta Patel (supra).

¶54

Adverting to the judgment in case of Man Mal Sharma (supra) relied upon by Mr. Bohra, which was relied upon to buttress the submission that for a stand-alone instance of default, a society cannot be dissolved and there should be continuing default in order to dissolve a society, this Court finds that the factual backdrop of the said case was entirely different from the present case.

¶55

(6 of 6)

¶56

[CW-9856/2021]

¶57

In the case in hand, the breach of statutory provision of continuing the Manager of the society till the age of 65 years, ignoring that retirement age was 60 years, was a continuing default. That apart, other allegations which remained unrefuted or unresponded to are good enough for passing an order of dissolution of petitioners’ society. Having regard to allegations levelled against the Chairman/Members of the society, this Court is of the considered view that it was a fit case of dissolution of the Managing Committee.

¶58

The petitioners who have chosen not to file reply and appear before respondent No.3 for defending their cause cannot take plea of breach of principles of natural justice. It cannot be said that there has been infraction of principles of natural justice.

¶59

The order impugned passed by the respondent No.2 is perfectly just and valid in the eyes of law. No interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is called for.

¶60

Writ petitions, therefore, fail.

¶61

Stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶62

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶63

10-11-Amar/-

Ajay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Lbs College, Doomroli Vs National Council for Teacher Edu.

Mld Girls T.T. College, Kekri Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Mld Mahila M.Ed. College, Kekri Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Likhma Ram Jat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gera @ Geru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan