ACHUTYANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution are Achutyanand Singh and the Kaithawalia Cane Growers' Co-operative Society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of Petitioner No. 2, the Co-operative Society. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass and are not disputed. We consider it unnecessary for our present purpose to refer to the earlier events including the correspondence between the Co-operative Department and the petitioners in the background of which the impugned order dated January 22, 1968 was made, because they have no material bearing on the question of the invalidity of the impugned order.

(2.) Ignoring therefore the earlier history of the controversy between the Cane Growers, Co-operative Societies and the Government Department of Co-operative Societies relating to the amalgamation of the Cane Growers' Co-operative Societies into Multipurpose Co-operative Societies, we need only begin with the order dated November 25, 1967 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bettiah directing the petitioner society to take steps for amalgamation of the petitioner society with the other co-operative societies mentioned therein. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner on December 14, 1967, with the Registirar, Co-operative Societies (Bihar) at Patna, under R. 39 (4) of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. While this appeal was pending, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed another order on January 22, 1968, by means of which he compulsorily amalgamated the petitioner Society with three other societies mentioned therein so as to form a new Multipurpose Co-operative Society. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition was presented in this Court on August 10, 1968, challenging the two orders of the Assistant Registrar. The impugned order dated January 22, 1968 reads as under:

(3.) Shri Chagla raised three contentions in this Court. According to the first contention the Assistant Registrar who passed the impugned orders was not competent to do so because the power to make such orders was not delegated to him under the law. According to the second contention during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal with the Registrar no further order could be passed by the Assistant Registrar with the result that the order dated January 22, 1968, was wholly unauthorised and therefore void. This challenge is founded on sub-rule (5) of R. 39. At this stage it would be helpful to reproduce R. 39: