LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-181

SANJAY CHIRIPAL Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

Decided On May 10, 2011
SANJAY CHIRIPAL Appellant
V/S
REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE captioned writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of his revisionary powers under Section 116 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `DCS Act'). By the impugned order the Financial Commissioner has repelled the challenge laid to the report of the Inquiry Officer (in short `I.O.') dated 15.01.2008 submitted by one D.P. Dwivedi, while conducting proceedings under Section 62 of the DCS Act.

(2.) IT is important to note that the upshot of the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner is that, the I.O. having put, the shortcomings and the deficiencies in the working of respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the Society) (as recorded in the inspection report), to the society, he had the authority to seek explanation and record compliance of such defects, shortcomings and deficiencies. The case of misappropriation and mis-utilization of funds not being pressed by the complainants, the Financial Commissioner was of the view that, under the scheme of the DCS Act, remedial action, if any, which was required to be taken by the Managing Committee of the society, could be directed to be taken by the Registrar in exercise of his powers under Section 67 of the DCS Act. In other words, the Registrar continues to be empowered to issue appropriate directions in pursuance of the IO's report. We would be touching upon this aspect in the course of our judgment. However, despite the aforesaid, the petitioner seeks to press the writ petition on the following grounds:

(3.) ON receiving the report, the Registrar vide order dated 26.09.2007, in exercise of his powers under Section 62 of the DCS Act, appointed an I.O. The I.O. enquired into the affairs of society in the background of the observations made in the inspection report. Particular emphasis was laid on the fourteen (14) violations listed out in the concluding portion of the inspection report. These have been extracted in paragraph 4 hereinabove.