PRADEEP JAIN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the impugned order dated 12.6.2013 passed by the Assistant Registrar (Banking), Cooperative Societies, Delhi purportedly in exercise of the powers vested in him under Sections 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 appointing an Inspecting Officer to conduct inspection of the Respondent No.4/Bank on the issues raised by the Administrator of the Bank vide letter dated 12.3.2013.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 was afforded time by us to obtain instructions as to whether an opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioners before the passing of the order under Section 61 of the Act in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated September 15, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.11663/2009 "Panchshila Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi". On obtaining instructions, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 states that no opportunity has been afforded to the Petitioners before passing of the order under Section 61 of the Act nor in fact it is incumbent upon the Registrar to afford such opportunity to the persons against whom the complaint has been made. The aforesaid submission made by counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is echoed by counsel for the Respondent No.4 Bank, namely, Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd.

(3.) RELIANCE is placed by learned counsel for the Petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Panchshila Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.'s case (supra) as well as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.208/2010 "Sh. Narender Kumar Jain vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi" dated 12.5.2011. In both the aforesaid cases, the impugned order was set aside on the ground that the due procedure indicated in the provisions of the Act had not been followed and the Registrar had failed to return a finding that he was prima facie satisfied that an inspection was necessary. It was held that such finding was to be recorded by the Registrar in writing and that too after affording an opportunity to the person against whom the complaints were made. In both the said decisions, it was noted that no opportunity had been given to the Petitioner Society or the members of the Managing Committee against whom serious allegations were levelled and therefore the impugned order could not be sustained.