RAVINDRA Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assailing the order dated 31. 3. 2003 in NO. AR40:rsr:administration:tmp:04:2003-04 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure -A, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is the President of the Board of Management of the Society. He was elected as Director of the 2nd respondent -society in the election held to the Board of Management on 6. 3. 1999. Thereafter, the election to the post of President was held on 16. 3. 1999 in which he has been elected as President of the Society. Ever since, he has been continuing in the said post. The further case of the petitioner is that the election to the Board of Management was held on 6. 3. 1999 and the directors elected in the said meeting have right to continue in the office for a period of 5 years. In view of the same, the petitioner and his committee are entitled to continue in the office for a period of 5 years commencing from March, 1999 and the term will expire only in March, 2004. In view of these facts, the present committee is entitled to continue till 31. 3. 2004 in the office. Be that as it may the 1st respondent, by yielding to the political pressure has been erroneously interpreting the provision of the Act and was pressuring the Society to hold fresh election. Under these circumstances, the committee had passed a resolution on 6. 3. 2002 to request the 1st respondent not insist to hold any election to the Board of Directors since it has right to continue in the office till March 2004. However, the 1st respondent, without giving opportunity or any notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order appointing the 2nd respondent as an administrator to the said society with a direction to complete the election process within three months from the date of taking charge. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31. 3. 2003 vide Annexure -A, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) THE principal ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned order is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Act. The said order takes away the statutory right of the petitioner because from the date he has taken the charge viz. , 16. 3. 1999, he is entitled to continue in the office for a period of 5 years and the said term will be completed only on 31. 3. 2004 and the said right cannot be curtailed by the 1st respondent by passing an administrative order and that the 1st respondent is not vested with such power. Further, he vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without application of mind. He has not called for any report or explanation from the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Further, the impugned order is the result of malafide exercise of power, which is aimed at unseating the petitioner and other directors for various other reasons. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.