Skip to content


Praja Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd. Vs. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 462 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Raj205; 1981()WLN650
ActsMulti Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 - Sections 3 and 5B; Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 36, 123(6) and 150; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantPraja Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd.
RespondentJoint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur and ors.
Appellant AdvocateH.C. Kumar in person; V.S. Dave, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.K. Sharma, Assistant Govt. Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
multi unit cooperative societies act, 1942 and rajasthan cooperative societies act, 1965 - sections 13 & 36--amendment of bye-laws--neither amendment of bye laws registered nor certificate issued that amendment was forwarded--no evidence to show that place of business was changed from bharatpur to launi in u.p.--held, it was a device to escape jurisdiction of joint registrar bharatpur who was competent to take action.;the amendment in the bye-laws was not registered nor a certificate in this regard signed by the registrar was ever forwarded to the society as required under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the rajasthan act. admittedly the petitioner has not produced such certificate of registered amendment signed or issued by the registrar and in the absence of such certificate it.....ordern.m. kasliwal, j.1. according to the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner m/s. praia sahkari udyog bharatpur ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the society) is a multi-unit co-operative society which is governed under the multi-unit cooperative societies act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the central act). it was originally registered under the rajasthan co-operative societies act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the rajasthan act) on 3-11-1971 vide registration no. 2079 and later on sought an amendment vide resolutions passed in the general body meeting held on 29-11-1971, notice of which was served upon the registrar of co-operative societies, rajasthan vide registry receipt receipt no. 678, dated 7-12-1971 for seeking amendment for the adoption of uttar pradesh.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner M/s. Praia Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society which is governed under the Multi-Unit Cooperative Societies Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). It was originally registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act) on 3-11-1971 vide registration No. 2079 and later on sought an amendment vide resolutions passed in the general body meeting held on 29-11-1971, notice of which was served upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan vide registry receipt receipt No. 678, dated 7-12-1971 for seeking amendment for the adoption of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and rules made thereunder on the ground that the proposed principal place of business of the petitioner stands shifted from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.). An order dated 3-5-1972was issued for making an inquiry andthereafter liquidation order was issuedon 6-6-1972. The petitioner filed a writpetition, which was decided in favour ofthe petitioner and whereby both theaforesaid orders were quashed andcharge of the society was taken over bythe then Chairman of the Society fromthe so-called liquidator. According to thepetitioner the so-called liquidator ShriK.S. Mathur, Inspector, Co-operativeDepartment falsified the accounts andrealised certain amount unlawfully andcomplaints to this effect were filed bythe petitioner and in result thereof ShriK. S. Mathur was arrested by the policeand due to this reason the officers of theCo-operative Department were bent uponto take over the said falsified and forgedaccounts from the elected members ofthe Board of Management of the societyin order to correct the wrongs. The respondent No. 7 Punjab National Bank,branch Bharatpur also embezzled a sumof Rs. 551.30 out of the current accountof the society in June, 1972 by makingfalse entries and a complaint to this offect was also filed by the society, due towhich the said respondent No. 7 alsotried to avoid payments to the societyfor one reason or the other and did notobey the lawful instructions of the petitioner society for the transfer of its account from Bharatpur Branch to DelhiBranch. The society also filed civil suitsfor damages amounting to Rs. 6.80 croresin the Civil Court at Jaipur as the working of the society was unlawfully stopped by the State of Rajasthan throughits police and Co-operative Departmentand in spite of decision of the writ petition in favour of the society, by the HighCourt on 25-1-1974. The S.H.O. PoliceStation Kotwali, Bharatpur arranged onceagain to stop working of the society byorder dated 1-2-1974 in the name of respondent No. 7 and directing the bankersof the society not to release money outof its own accounts. On account of suchillegal action of the State of Rajasthanthrough its police department, the petitioner society has been put in such anembarrassing position that itcould not pay the salary to its employeesand also could not refund the money tothe members. The society as such filedanother suit for damages amounting toRs. 10 crores against the State of Rajasthan and the respondent No. 7 in theCivil Court at Jaipur. The society alsomoved a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C.against the orders of the S.H.O., Kotwali. Bharatpur, dated 1-2-74 and this Hon'ble Court quashed the orders of the S.H.O, on 10-1-79.

2. On 9-1-1979, the State of Rajasthan through Joint Registrar, Co-operativa Societies, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur issued an illegal order purported to have been passed by the said Joint Registrar under the powers of the Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi conferred upon him under the Central Act and the same was handed over to Shri H.C. Kumar, the moment he came out of the court room on 10-1-1979. By this order dated 9lh January, 1979 the Joint Registrar by virtue of powers vested in him under Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 read with Section 36 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act has removed the Board of Management of the society and appointed the Assistant Registrar, Co-opertive Societies, Bharatpur as its administrator- The Joint Registrar later passed an order on 11-9-1979 appointing Technical Assistant to Joint 'Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur as administrator of the society in place of the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner society by this writ petition has challenged the aforesaid orders dated 9-1-1979 and 11-9-1979 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur. The main grounds of challenge are: that no prior notice was given to the society or its duly elected members of the Board of Management before passing the aforesaid orders as required under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Act. No consultation was ever made to the financing bank of the society as required under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Act. The petitioner society being an International level Multi-Unit Co-operative Society and to which Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is applicable along with the Central Act, no order under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Act could be passed in respect of the petitioner society. The impugned order dated 9-1-79 relates to some Praia Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd., Bharatpur and not Praja Sahkari Udoyg Ltd., Delhi and thus the order is bad in law. The earlier orders issued under the Rajasthan Act were quashed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition on 25-1-1974 and orders of the S.H.O., police station, Kotwali, Bharatpur dated 1-2-1974 were quashed by the High Court on 10-1-1979 and in spite of that the impugned order dated 9-1-1979 has been issued, which is in violation of the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 25-1-74.

3. Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 submitted reply to the writ petition. According to the stand taken by the aforesaid respondents, though learned single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1080/72 decided on 25th January, 1974. held that the society was a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society but this fact is under challenge in Special Appeal No- 67/74 pending against the decision of the learned single Judge. The society was registered as an Industrial Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and it was registered subject to the conditions laid down in the bye-laws as registered with the certificate of registration. The bye-laws registered with registration certificate were never amended nor any certificate for the amendment of bye-laws were ever issued. The amendments sought by the petitioner society were not registered by the statutory authority under the Rajasthan Act for which a detailed procedure is contained under Section 13 of the Rajasthar. Act. The action for the adoption of th.3 Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the rules made thereunder and shifting of its principal place of business from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) is in contravention of the Act and Rules and is denied. The proposed amendment as averred by the petitioner in para No. 2 of the writ petition was received by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan and the same were sent for comments to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur, and as the Assistant Registrar, Bharatpur returned the papers by hand to Shri H. C. Kumar who never produced the same to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, no further action could be taken for the amendment of the bye-laws. It has beer, further averred that a case under Sections 420 and 468, I.P.C- was registered against Shri H. C. Kumar in which he was challaned. The charges have been framed in that case and trial is pending against Shri H.C. Kumar in a criminal court at Bharatpur. Shri H. C. Kumar filed a Criminal Revision No. 252/79, against the order dated 1-8-79 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur, but the same was rejected by the High Court on 5-11-79 vide Anexure R/2.

4. It is admitted by the respondents that an inquiry under Section 70 if the Rajasthan Act and liquidation Order dt 6-6-72 was issued by the Assistant Registrar and the society filed a writ petition against the aforesaid orders in the High Court. The learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ No. 1080/72 by order dated 25-1-1974 accepted the writ partially on technical grounds and held that the so-called society was a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society and as such the action taken by the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction. The Said judgment of the learned single Judge is under challenge in appeal before the Division Bench in D. B. Special Appeal No. 67/74. It is admitted that certain complaints were filed against Shri K.S. Mathur, Inspector, Co-operative Department, but no challan was filed against him. The filing of the suits in Civil Court at Jaipur are admitted but it is alleged that Shri H.C. Kumar is not persuing the cases and is playing the delaying tactics. It is further averred that vide order dated 25-1-1974 passed by the learned single Judge, Shri H. C. Kumar was required to furnish fidelity guarantee to respondent No. 7. It is not known as to how the bank did not allow Shri Kumar to withdraw funds and operate the accounts. In the past Shri Kumar had designed means to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,19,767 by obtaining decrees and awards from various courts in collusion with his associates on the grounds of salary, honorarium. T. A. & D. A. etc. The details of such decrees and awards have been given in para No. 7 of the reply. The order dated 9-1-1979 was issued and was served on Shri H.C. Kumar on 10-1-1979 at Jaipur, because he was avoiding service of the notices and other orders in a routine course, which is evident from the report on the file of D. B. Special Appeal No. 67/74. The photostat copy of application dated 22-11-75 from the Government Advocate, Jodh-pur has been annexed as Rule 3.

5. It is also averred that under the registered bye-laws the office of the society is deemed to be situated at Bharatpur. The office of the society at Delhi or Launi (U. P.) was never got registered nor the offices are situated at these places. The power to supersede the management of a co-operative society vests with the respondent No. 1 Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur in persuonce of the Government of India's notification dated 20th April, 1'977, reproduced as below:

'No. L-11011/2/70-A&M-; In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 of the Multi-Unit Co-op. Societies Act, 1942 (5 of 1942) the Central Govt. hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in late Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies (Department of Civil Supplies and Cooperation) No. 5 S.O. 775 dated the 30th Jan. 1976 namely:

6. In the table appended to the said notification serial No. 3 and the entries relating thereto shall be renumbered as entry (i) and after serial No. and entry so renumbered the following shall be inserted namely:

OfficersMulti-Unit Co-operative Societies;(ii) Jt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur.All Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies which actually are or are deemed to be registered in Alwar, Bharatpur and Sawai-Madhopur Districts of Rajasthan.

It is also submitted that this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated April 4, 1979 in S.B. Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 32/79 has already disposed of, the contention of the petitioner relating to Order dated 9-1-1979 which he had challenged by moving the contempt application. The copy of the Judgment dated April 4, 1979 has been annexed as Annexure R/4. The petitioner-society cannot claim having international objects and so it cannot be termed as National Level Organisation. The Government of India vide their Notification No. L. 11011/2/70-L & M dated 30-1-76 have recognised only 14 Co-operative Societies and in this notification the name of the petitioner-society is not included. Since the petitioner society is not a National level Society under the Provisions of the Co-operative Laws, the Joint Registrar is competent to supersede or liquidate the petitioner-society in exercise of the powers vested in him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 read with Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942. The petitioner-society had not challenged the aforesaid Notification dated 30-1-1976 prior to this writ petition. It has been further averred that the order dated 9-1-1979 is self-explanatory to show that action under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Act was necessary. Para N6. 7 of the order dated 9-1-1979 which is self-explanatory is reproduced as under:--

'Whereas the undersigned has been delegated the powers of the Central Re-gistrar under Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 in order to protect the interest of the public and the depositors of the society, consider it desirable to act in the matter. The Society is not functioning according to its bye-laws. There have been no election, General Body meetings since the registration of the Society. There have been no inspection, audit because the Society has been avoiding the same and has removed its record from Bharatpur District which is its area of operation. The society does not accept and avoid letters, notices, communications from the undersigned department. In fact the society has legally/factually stopped to exist and no proceedings are possible under the law against him. Shri H.C. Kumar has been styling himself as the Managing, Director of the Society and its Chairman without any legal authority and it has come to notice that he is about to squander the funds of the society, likely to cause, damage to the depositors 'and public. There is no option left with the respondent but to take action under Section 36 of the Act.'

7. The respondents have further stated in their reply that the petitioner never presented the record of the society for its audit, inspection or inquiry to the Officer/Officers appointed for the purpose of audit, inspection or inquiry. The petitioner-society at its own motion managed to get accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant and has thus violated Section 10 of the Rajasthan Act. Documents Annexures 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, R/6 and R/7 have been filed in support of the aforesaid contention. The society has not furnished the membership register and information about the membership right from the beginning even to the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner-Society which is an important document to verify the genuine membership of a co-operative society. The audit report speaks about the present address of the society i.e. 322, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110032, whereas the society in para 2 of the writ petition has stated that the proposed principal place of business of the petitioner society stands shifted from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.). This shows that the petitioner is misguiding the authorities and this Hon'ble Court too by giving two separate addresses. Further the petitioner has not mentioned complete address of its office at Launi (U. p.) and in support of this fact Annexure R/8 has been enclosed which proves that the address for Launi was false. The Deputy Director, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation, New Delhi vide their letter No- 11011/12/ 74 L&M; dated 27 Nov., 1979 (Annexure R/9) have intimated that they have not been able to contact the officers of the society and it appears that the address of the society is a fraud and forged one- The Registrar Co-operative Societies, New Delhi vide his office letter dated 4-12-79 (Annexure R-10) has confirmed the non-existence and non-registration of the petitioner-Society in State of Delhi. On inquiry made by the Administrator, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Authorities vide their letter No. 1723 have intimated that there is no separate house No. 322 altotted to any house as per records of the Corporation. In fact house at 320-22 number is in the name of Shri Sahir-ur-Rehman C/o the Custodian, New Delhi. The photostat copies of the letter of Delhi Municipal Corporation have been enctosed as Annexures R-11 and 11 (A). It is further averred that letters addressed to Shri H.C. Kumar at 322, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi have been returned unserved as undelivered. Thus it is clear that at 322, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi 110032, the office of the petitioner society does not exist and Shri H. C. Kumar has given wrong registered address of the petitioner society to misguide the authorities and this Hon'ble Court. It has been further submitted that the depositors/members of the petitioner society have also complained about the false and forged address of the petitioner society. It has also been mentioned that in the registration application Shri Kumar has mentioned hia name as H. C. Kumar S/o late A. Chandra, resident of Bharatpur, while in the first Writ Petition No. 1080/72 he had mentioned his name as H. C. Kumar S/o Late Shri J. Ram, C/o. registered office situated opposite Municipal Board, Bharatpur and Central Office 2/19-2 Jangpura 'A' New Delhi-14 and when the address of the petitioner was disputed, then amendment was moved on the grounds of slips which was allowed by the Court. Again in this writ petition he has mentioned his particulars in the affidavit attached with the writ petition as H.C. Kumar Son of late Shri J. Ram residing at Raja Park, Jaipur and this cannot be a slip for the second time. The true fact is that the Rajasthan police investigated the case against Shri H.C. Kumar in F.I.R. No. 64 under Sections 420/468, I.P.C., Police Station, Kotwali, Bharatpur and they found that the correct particulars of Shri H. C. Kumar were as follows:--

'During the course of investigation it was found that Shri H. C. Kumar is in habit of changing his name. He was also wanted in case F.I.R. No. 344/69 under Ss. 409/420/468, I.P.C., P. S. Manak Chowk Jaipur where he was named as S. K. Bhardwaj and also in case F.I.R. No. 230 dated 3-7-69 under Ss. 419/170, I.P-C. P.S. Manak Chowk, Jaipur. His real name is M. C. Bahal as is proved from the letter received from Sr. Divisional Manager, Ajmer Life Insurance Corporation of India where he has served as a Typist in LIC from 4-7-62 to 23-11-65 and he was dismissed from service for alleged fraud of T. A. bills. It is also found that he is in habit of changing his father's name according to his convenience. In a case registered at Jaipur he had given his father's name as J. Ram. In an affidavit in Writ Petition No. 1176/67 pending before Delhi High Court, he has given his father's name as B.B. Bahal. In another affidavit in Writ petition No. 1080 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur he has given his father's name as J. Ram while in the application form submitted before Asstt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur he has given his father's name as A. Chandra. According to the letter received from Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, his real name and parentage is Harish Chandra Bahal son of Anup Chandra Bahal resident of 353 Subzi Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi. The copy of the factual report given is enctosed herewith as Annexure R-14.'

It has been further averred that Shri H. C. Kumar in collusion with the interested persons had obtained decree fraudulently against the interest of the petitioner-society from Delhi High Court and is still trying to devour the funds of the society by way of salaries, T. A. & D. a. honorarium and interest and has manipulated the records to meet his self-interests at the cost of the petitioner society. Besides this other associates also obtained decrees from various courts of whose details have been given in para 16 (c) of the reply. Further it is submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,19,767 have been obtained by self-interested persons in satisfaction of a decree passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Suit No. 226-A/ 1976. Shri H. C- Kumar is involved in the aforesaid suits directly or indirectly against the interest of petitioner society. Even balance-sheet ending on 30th June, 1979 audited by M/s. Kuldeep & Co. Chartered Accountants, Draya Ganj, New Delhi speaks about the foltowing current liabilities (as salaries etc.) against the petitioner society:--

Shri Mehtab Shankar Rs. 42,115-60Shri Sudarahan Rs. 39,995.60Shri Praveen Kumar Rs. 19,117.40Shri Subhash Rs. 23,153.60Shri P.M. Sharma Rs. 19,605.06Shri Jagdish Chandra Rs. 69,949.00Shri H. C, Kumar Rs. 6,16,818.72--------------------Total Rs. 8,43,509.30--------------------(or 8,30,754.981)

At present Shri H.C. Kumar has styled himself as General Manager drawing consolidated salary (c) Rs. 5000 per month since 1971. The above facts clearly show that Shri H.C. Kumar who has filed the present writ petition has not come with clean hands and is trying to devour the entire funds of the society. The Administrator and the Co-operative department of the Government of India and also the Government of Rajasthan have received number of applications/complaints for the refund of their deposits. A charge under Section 420, I.P.C. has already been framed against Shri H. C. Kumar and' others, which is pending in the court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur. Under those circumstances, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies has rightly issued the directions vide his order dated 9-1-1979 and action taken by him is perfectly in accordance with law and is in the interest of the society and its members and depositors. It has been further averred that the impugned order dt. 9-1-1979 is an appealable order and as a suitable alternative remedy of appeal has not been availed of, no relief can be granted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further mentioned that if the petitioner society isallowed to play in the hands of Shri H.C. Kumar and his associates, members/depositors' money would be totally washed away and the confidence of the general public in co-operative movement and the Government shall be shattered.

8. The petitioner then submitted rejoinder to the aforesaid reply submitted by the respondents explaining the charges levelled against him and the respondents thereafter filed reply to the rejoinder.

9. I would first deal with the legal contentions raised by Shri H.C. Kumar who argued the petition himself. The petitioner society cannot be termed as National Level Organisation. The Government of India is entitled to treat an in-dutry as a National Level Organisation by issuing a notification in this regard. In accordance with the notification dt. 30th Jan., 1976 issued by the Govt. of India it has recognised only 14 co-operative societies in this category and in this notification the name of the petitioner society is not included. Thus I see no force in the contention of Shri Kumar that the petitioner society should be treated as a National level organisation having international objects.

10. The petitioner society was admittedly registered as an Industrial Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and it was registered subject to the condition laid down in the bye-laws as registered with the certificate of registration. Under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act no amendment of any bye-law of a Co-operative Society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered or is deemed to be registered under this act and conditions under Sub-section (2) are complied with. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides as under:--

'The Registrar shall forward to the society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered.'

Under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 where the Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society he shall communicate the order of refusal, together with the reasons therefor, to the society. Under Sub-section (5)-- If the Registrar is unable to register the proposed amendment within the period of three months from the date of making the application for registration under Section 6 he shall forward the papers to the State Government along with his report stating the reasons therefor and for seeking extension, and he shall thereafter act in accordance with such directions as may be issued to him by the State Government within two months. Though the petitioner in this regard has made an averment that it sought an amendment vide resolution passed in the general body meeting held on 29-11-1971, notice of which was served upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State of Rajasthan for seeking amendment for adoption of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and Rules made thereunder on the ground that the proposed principal place of business of the petitioner stands shifted from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) but this fact is denied in toto by the respondents. According to them the bye-laws registered with registration certificate were neither amended nor any certificate for the amendment of bye-laws were ever issued. Though it is admitted that the proposed amendment was received by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan and the same were sent for comments to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur and as the Assistant Registrar returned the papers by hand to Shri H.C. Kumar who never produced the same to the Registrar, as such no further action could be taken for the amendment of the bye-laws. In the rejoinder the petitioner stated that 'it was not at all admitted that the original papers were handed over to Shri H. C. Kumar by the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur. In fact a copy of the letter along with which the documents were sent to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Deputy Registrar, Industries, Co-op. Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur), a copy of which is enclosed herewith and marked Annexure P/2, was handed over to Shri H. C. Kumar, which was in the name of the petitioner society as is evident from the enclosed Annexure P/2. A receipt for the same was obtained by the clerk concerned'. In reply to the rejoinder submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 it was again asserted that the contents of sub-para (2) of the rejoinder were denied. The answering respondents had given detailed reply in the writ petition. However it was again asserted that the papers were handed over to Shri H. C. Kumar. Thus it remains a matter of controversy whether the papers of proposed amendment remained with Shri H.C. Kumar or with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan. Be that as it may the fact remains that the amendment in the bye-laws was not registered nor a certificate in this regard signed by the Registrar was ever forwarded to the society as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act. Admittedly the petitioner has not produced such certificate of registered amendment signed or issued by the Registrar and in the absence of such certificate it cannot be believed that any amendment in the bye-laws wasallowed. Thus the petitioner-society being registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act will be governed by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act only. It may be further pointed out that under Section 150 of the Rajasthan Act no society can open a branch or a place of business outside the State of Rajasthan. The question thus of transferring the place of business of the society from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) is totally out of question. That apart the petitioner has not placed a single iota of material on record to show that the society had in fact started its business at Launi (U. P.), but on the other hand for its registered office even it has taken the stand that it had changed its office from Bharatpur to Delhi, On the other hand there is material on record to show that even letters which were sent to the society at Launi (U. P.) were returned undelivered. Thus I am in agreement with the contention of the respondents that the society never changed its place of business in fact as well as in law from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) and its mere ingenuity and device of Shri H.C. Kumar to escape from the hold of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur who is the only competent authority under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act to take action against the petitioner society. While deciding the contempt application No. 32/79 filed by the petitioner-society, I have already decided that vide notification dated 20th April, 1977 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5-B of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 had made an amendment in S. O- No. 775, dated 30th Jan., 1976 whereby the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur has been empowered under the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act. From the above notification U is clear that the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur Division Bharatpur has an authority to take action under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Act. The Joint Registrar has given detailed reasons for taking an action under Section 36 in his order dated 9-1-1979. I see no reason to hold that such order is without jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner or suffers from any illegality. Thus I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. In the earlier Writ Petn. No. 1080/72 decided on 25-1-1974 a view was taken that the petitioner society was a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society and as such the impugned orders challenged in that writ petition could not have been issued under the Raiasthan Act. That infirmity has been subsequently removed by issuance of a notification dated 20th April, 1977 by the Central Government and the order dated 9-1-1979 now challenged can have no Infirmity.

11. I also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal against the order passed under Section 36 is provided under Clause (e) of Sub-section (6) of Section 123 of the Rajasthan Act, within 60 days from the date of such decision or order. The petitioner society did not avail of such remedy and thus it has no right to challenge the order dated 9th Jan., 1979, passed under Section 36 on merits by invoking an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. It may also be observed in the al-ternative, that Shri H. C. Kumar who has filed this writ petition styling himself as promotor member and presently General Manager as well as duly elected Director of the Board of Management of M/s. Praja Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd., against whom cases of Sections 420 and 461 L. P. C. are pending with relation to his conduct with the management and affairs of the petitioner society itself, cannot be considered a person competent to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. I do not want to make any comments on his conduct as it may prejudice his case under Sections 420 and 468 I. P. C. for which he is facing trial, but I am fully convinced that he is not at all a fit person, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to take cudgels on behalf of the petitioner society and to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

13. In 'he result this writ petition is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //