URMILA GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMSTHA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have directed this revision petition against the order dated 31.7.2000 passed by the non-applicant No. 1/DRCS, Gwalior.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner society is a registered Cooperative Housing Society, of which Shri Shukla was the duly elected President. Dy. Registrar had earlier issued a show cause notice to the executive committee of the petitioner Society on 28.6.2000 to show cause as to why the committee of the Society be not superseded. Thereafter as per order dated 8.9.1999 the Dy. Registrar superseded the executive committee of the Society. This order of the Dy. Registrar was challenged by the petitioner in the first appeal and also in second appeal in this Tribunal. This Tribunal by its judgment dated 8.2.2000 passed in SA No. 666/99 had quashed the supersession order. Even prior to this, a show cause notice under section 53(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, for short hereinafter referred to as Act, was also issued to the executive committee of the Society on 2.2.1999 on similar charges and on receipt of the reply of the executive committee of the Society, Dy. Registrar was satisfied and has recalled the show cause notice as per his order dated 16.3.1999. Along with the present show cause notice dated 28.6.2000, President of the Society submitted his reply on 13.7.2000. On this date he submitted two applications demanding legible copies of documents which were enclosed along with the notice by the Dy. Registrar and in another application certain queries were made from the Dy. Registrar. Since the petitioner did not get any reply from Dy. Registrar, he had also sent one reminder but the desired documents were not supplied to him. Ultimately by this impugned Order dated 31.7.2000, the executive committee of the Society was superseded by the non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2. its OIC.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the Court below. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Impugned order is illegal ?