INDRAPRASTHA ESTATE Vs. DEPUTY HOUSING COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the validity of the order dated 18th June, 1992 passed by the Deputy Housing Commissioner/Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lucknow, copy of which has been filed. as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By that order the respondent no. 1 has initiated proceedings for supercession under section 35 (1) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act; and has also passed an order under section 35 (2) suspending the Committee of management during the pendency of the supercession proceedings and for interim management of the society appointed the City Magistrate, Meerut as the Administrator. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the grounds that no enquiry whatsoever had taken place against the society, the Registrar did not afford any opportunity to the Society, no opportunity was afforded to the Committee of Management before passing of the suspension order and lastly the impugned order has been passed because of the malafide conduct of the respondent no. 4.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by Amar Nath Yadav. respondent no. 4 on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondent no. 1 Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no 1 to 4. Since in the instant case counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and there are no private parties and as provided under the Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since at the time of inspection made by the respondent no. 4, the Society refused to fulfill the illegal demand of paying Rs. 40,000/'- to the respondent no 4 a false report was submitted against the Society. It was further contended that since a representation was made to the Chief Minister and the Minister for cooperation and other Higher Authorities against the conduct of the respondent no. 4 and on the aforesaid representation a Vigilence enquiry has been set up, the respondent no. 4 has manipulated the impugned order from the respondent no. 1. We have perused the writ petition and we find that the allegations regarding demand of Rs 40,000/- by the respondent no. 4 at the time of inspection has been made in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the writ petition, THE respondent no 4 who has filed his counter-affidavit has denied the averments in paragraphs 26 and 28 of the counter-affidavit. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Vigilence enquiry has been set up against the respondent no 4, which has been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has also been denied in paragraph 28 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 A perusal of the alleged representation made by the petitioner no 2 to the higher authorities indicates that the said representation was sent in May, 1991 in which complaints regarding bribery against Sri S. N Tripathi. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, Sri R. N. Singh, Additional District Magistrate (E), Meerut and Lekhpal Shri Ram Kailash Singh were also made. In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that it has been alleged that Ram Kailash Singh hinted Rs. 5 lakha for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Meerut and the Additional District Magistrate (E) Meerut in connection with some of the mutation cases pertaining to the society. THE allegation of bribery does not end here A perusal of the said representation further indicates that Rs 7 lacks were demanded by Sarvajeet Singh, Land Acquisition Officer THE allegations have also been made against officials of the Board of Revenue namely Sri J. P. Mehrotra and Sri S. C Srivastava for conniving Sri Sarvajeet Singh. Apart from the aforesaid fact the other fact which falsifies the case of the petitioner regarding malafides of respondent no. 4 is that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that the respondent no. 4 demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner no. 2 for submitting a correct report, otherwise a wrong and adverse report to the interest of the Society was threatened but in the alleged representation, Annexure-6 to the writ petition it has been stated as under :