GURUMUKH SINGH HORA Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri R.S. Garg, J. The petitioner Gurumukh Singh Hora, the Chairman of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Marketing Federation, has challenged the correctness, validity and property of the order dated 8.12.2000 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (Respondent No. 4).

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is the Chairman of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Marketing Federation. According to him, he has assumed the charge of the office on 30.10.2000, therefore, under the provisions of Rule 43-A(2) 9f M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 within one year of assumption of the, charge by him, a no confidence motion cannot be moved against him but as a no confidence motion has been moved against him and as the Additional Registrar has appointed an Officer to preside the meeting, the action is bad. The petitioner in fact, was elected as Chairman of M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation on 4.1.1997 for a period of five years and unless a mishap occurs he could continue upto 3.1.2000. On 1.11.2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into being and in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Sahkari Society (Punargathan Aur Nirman) Adhyadesh (4/2000) the said M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as M.P. Federation) was divided into two and the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as Chhattisgarh Federation) also came into being. The petitioner as he says assumed charge of Chhattisgarh Federation on 30.10.2000. According to him, on 19.10.2000 in the United Madhya Pradesh, 19 Directors had moved a no confidence motion against him but after some time 11 Directors withdrew the said motion. Within twenty days of the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh and creation of Chhattisgarh Federation, on 20.11.2000, a no confidence motion under Ex.P/2 was moved. 27.11.2000, the petitioner wrote to the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh Federation that as he has assumed charge on 30.10.2000, in accordance with the Rule 43-A of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), a no confidence motion could not be moved against him within one year. On 8.12.2000, the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued a notice and directed the Deputy Registrar to preside over the meeting. The petitioner is aggrieved by appointment of the Presiding Officer and the said no confidence motion. The present petition was filed on 12.12.2000 and came up for hearing on 13.12.2000. One Mohanlal Chandrakar, a Director of Chhattisgarh Federation, made an application for intervention through Shri M.D. Sharma, Advocate. On 13.12.2000 itself, the petitioner filed some documents. The matter was taken up or hearing on 13.12.2000 itself and after hearing the parties in was directed that Vasudev Chandrakar, Mohan Chandrakar, Ayta Ram and Pradeep Kumar Gupta be joined as parties as respondents No. 6 to 9, copy of the petition and the annexures be also supplied to Shri Sharma, who was representing one of the interveners. The matter was directed to the listed for hearing on 14.12.2000. The newly joined respondent No. 7 Mohan Chandrakar filed his reply alongwith certain documents. At the request of the counsel for the State, the matter was adjourned. On 15.12.2000, this Court admitted the petition for hearing and directed issuance of notice to the respondents Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9. After hearing the parties on the question of grant of interim relief, this Court directed that the respondents be restrained from carrying no confidence motion or holding a meeting for consideration of the said no confidence motion. The matter came up for hearing on 12.2.2001 but was adjourned. It against came up for hearing on 14.2.2001 and was directed to be listed for hearing on 2.3.2001. On 3.1.2001, the petitioner made an application for amendment of the petition. This Court had earlier directed that the proposed amendment appears to be as regards interpretation of certain provisions of law, therefore, the same will be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing. On 27.2.2001, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to his petition. The respondents No. 6, 8 and 9 submitted their return dated 7.2.2001 on 8.2.2001. They contended that the reliance on Rule 43-A was misconceived because the petitioner did not enter the officer or assumed the charge on 30.10.2000 but had continued in the said office. The said respondents also contended that on coming into force of M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 the new State has come into existence and with a view to bifurcate the existing societies the said ordinance was promulgated. They also submitted that the elections of Madhya Pradesh Federation were held in the year 1996 and the petitioner was elected as Chairman on 4.1.1997, therefore, on bifurcation of the Society and coming into existence of the new Federation it could not be presumed that the petitioner had assumed charge for the first time. According to them, the law nowhere says that on coming into existence of the State of Chhattisgarh and bifurcation of the existing Federation the Directors and the Chairman would again assume charge. They have also stated that the respondents were justified in requestioning the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion because the Committee had lost faith in the petitioner. It was also submitted by them that the petitioner had no right to challenge the order of the Additional Registrar. They also submitted that the petitioner in fact was continuing as Chairman of the Federation by clause 3 of the Ordinance and Section 61 of the M.P. Re-organisation Act. According to these respondents, five Directors out of seven had moved no confidence motion against the petitioner and by no stretch of imagination the said motion could be condemned as bad, or contrary to law, or contrary to the provisions of bye-laws. The respondents No. 1 to 4 had filed their return on 13.2.2001. These respondents contended that the existing State Level Co-operative Societies were reconstituted/bifurcated into M.P. Co-operative Societies and Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies. They also submitted that the Ordinance only deals with, the reconstitution of the State Level Co-operative Societies and maintains their status as representatives or office bearers by fiction but did not alter or modify any provision of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules made thereunder. It is also submitted by these respondents that the words "till the expiry of their term under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960" employed in clause 3(2) of the Ordinance were simply used to continue the societies and avoid a void. According to them, the intention of the legislation was to avoid election immediately and permit the elected authority or body to continue for rest of the term. According to them, a resolution for no confidence motion shall not lie in a case where the Chairman assumes charge of his office for the first time and not in a case where because of the fiction he continues in his office. The respondents No. 1 to 4 also submit that a fair perusal of sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 of the Ordinance would make it clear that the office bearers of the existing society shall continue to hold their office and no fresh tenure has been given to them. These respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) On 29.3.2001, respondents No. 1 alongwith an application submitted a copy of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 6240/2000 in the matter of Abdul Rashid v. State of M.P. and others, On 12.4.2001 the respondents No. 1 to 4 made an application for vacation of the interim order. On 12.4.2001 itself, the respondent No. 7 also made an application for vacation of the stay order. The amendment application filed by the petitioner was replied by the respondents No. 6, 8 and 9 and, by respondent No. 7. The matter came up for hearing before the Court on 26.4.2001 but it was directed to be listed on 2.5.2001. At the request of the parties, the matter was directed to be taken up on 9.5.2001, but because of the rush of the work the matter came up for consideration on 11.5.2001. My Lord the Chief Justice directed that the matter be listed before this Bench on 4.6.2001 for final disposal. The matter came up for hearing on 7.6.2001 and at the request of the parties it was taken up on 11.6.2001 and with the consent of the parties it was finally heard.