R P DUBE Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constiution of India, the petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary or theDelhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd., a Society, registeredunder the Bombay Cooperative Society Act, 1925, as extended to theUnion Territory of Delhi, hereinafter to be referred as "the Society",seeks to quash certain orders made by the Registrar, Cooperative Soieties, respondent No. 2, and to restrain the respondents, who includethe Lt. Governor of Delhi, certain individuals who claim to be itsoffice-bearers, and the Commissioner, Food & Supplies, from interferingin the working and management of the Society. An order is also soughtto restrain the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi, hereinafter to bereferred as "the Registrar", from taking any action under Section 55of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 hereinafter to be referredas "the Act".

(2.) The Society was registered in December 1962 with the object of organising, assisting and aiding consumer cooperatives and do wholesale and retail business in consumer goods. In October 1969, the Managing Committee of the Society was superseded following certain chargesagainst it and the management of the affairs of the Society was entrusted to a nominated committee. In March 1975, the Society electedSmt. Mukul Bannerjee, a member of Parliament and PrithviSingh Gaur, respondent No. 3, as its President and VicePresident respectively. The petitioner and B. L. Chabra, respondent No. 4, J. N. Sahney, respondent No. 5, were elected as themembers of the managing committee. The managing committee electedthe petitioner as its Secretary. It further appears that, either on accountof charges of misappropriation of the funds of the Society and mismanagement of its affairs, made against the petitioner, or as a resultof a tussle for leadership of the Society, the managing Committee wassplit up into two hostile groups, one led by the petitioner and the otherby respondents 3, 4 and 5. The petitioner was apparently able toenlist the support of the President of the Society. As a sequel to thedissensions attempts were made by one group to oust the other fromthe various offices and the Managing Committee. Rival claims weremade as to the validity of proceedings of various meetings, election ofoffice bearers and even eligibility to be the members of the ManagingCommittee. The faction opposed to the petitioner apparently soughtthe intervention of the Registrar and persuaded him to make four ordersand directions. By an order of 19/09/1975 (Annexure 12) inpurported exercise of power under Rule 77 of The Delhi CooperativeSocieties Rules, 1973, hereinafter to be called "the Rules", the Registrardirected that the status quo be maintained pending consideration of .thedispute by the Managing Committee and convened its meetings. By anorder of 8/10/1975 (Annexure 31), also in purported exerciseof power under Rule 77 of the Rules, the Registrar directed that ameeting called by the petitioner shall not be held. By the third orderof 15/10/1975 (Annexure 36), for which also Rule 77 of theRules was invoked, the Registrar declared as illegal certain meetings,the co-option of members, the election of the petitioner and cancelleda meeting of the General Body called by the Managing Committee. Bythe fourth order of 8/10/1975 (Annexure 10), in purportedexercise of power under Section 55 of the Act, the Registrar directedan inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner assails these four orders.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the various actions taken and ordersissued by the Registrar from time to time culminating in his order of 15/10/1975, were mala fide, illegal, void and bad in law andwere, therefore, liable to be quashed. The petitioner contends thatfrom the chronology of events, it is obvious that the Registrar has beenin collusion with respondents 3 to 5 and has been acting in a manner,which was contrary to the interest of the Society. It is further contendedthat the various orders and directions issued by the Registrar from timeto time in purported exercise of power vested by Rule 77 of the Ruleswere in excess of powers inasmuch as Rule 77 did not empowerthe Registrar to make any of the orders or the directions in question.It is further contended that if Rule 77 is construed as being wide enoughto empower the Registrar to make any order or give any direction inrelation to the business, affairs and administration of the Society Rule 77is bad, being ultra vires of. the' Act, as also being beyond the rule-making power conferred by the Act. It is urged that under Rule 77 itwas not open to the Registrar to set at naught the decisions taken bythe duly constituted Committee of the Society in the conduct of itsbusiness and such a power would be excluded by implication becauseof specific provision in the Act which empowers a Registrar to interferein the management and the affairs of the Society, after following theprocedure laid down in the Act and the Rules. It is, therefore, urgedthat the various orders passed by the Registrar, particularly the ordersdated 19/09/1975, Annexure 12/10/1975. Annexure31, order dated 8/10/1975, Annexure 10, and order dated 15/10/1975, Annexure 36, must be quashed as being mala fide,in excess of powers and, void. It is further urged that the order dated 19/09/1975, Annexure 12, was both mala fide and in excessof powers and that the Registrar had no power to call a meeting of themanaging Committee and could have, at best, directed the Committeeto convene the meeting or to take action, if the directions had not beencarried out. It is further alleged that the action of the Registrar incalling meetings, even though being aware that neither the Presidentnor the Secretary of the Society would be available, was mala fide. Thepetitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned orders and actions bequashed and that the Registrar and the other respondents be restrainedfrom interfering in the management and conduct of business of theSociety and the Registrar be also restrained from taking any actionunder Section 55 of the Act in relation to the affairs of the Society.