UTTAM SINGH KHATEEK Vs. M P GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS in this appeal are challenging legality of the resolution dated 22.1.2001 passed by the committee of Reg. No. 5 society and also challenging the legality of the show cause notice dated 26.6.2001 issued by Res. No. 3 in the light of the following facts and circumstances :

(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 is President of the appellant No. 2 marketing society and was also elected its representative to represent in Res. Mo. 5 bank. As representative of appellant No. 2 society he was elected as director on the Board of directors of Ren. No. 5 bank. It appears that the appellant No. 2 had to recover some amount from Res. No. 5 and Res. No. 5 has also to recover a large sum of its dues from appellant No. 2 society. Both these societies have filed their separate dispute case before the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, for short hereinafter referred to as Act for recovery of their dues against each other. Res. No. 5 have filed that dispute case for recovery of Rs. 30,87,565 with interest thereon. Learned Dy. Registrar clubbed both these cases together and passed a very vague type of composite order the accounts of both societies be audited and outstanding amount against each other would be ascertained and both the societies should pay their dues to other society. This order was carried in appeal by the Res. No. 5 before the Joint Registrar, Sagar in appeal No. 32/2000. It appears that in the meanwhile the committee of Res. No. 5 society issued show cause notices to both the appellants under section 19AA of the Act to show cause as to why the appellant No. 1 be not disqualified to hold the post of director as his root level society, being the appellant No. 2 is over due debtor to respondent No. 5 for a period exceeding 12 years on 28.9.2000. This show cause notice was challenged by the appellants before the High Court in W.P. No. 187/2001. This petition was disposed of by order dated 17.1.2001 with a direction to the Joint Registrar to decide the appeal of the Respondent No. 5 pending before him within a period of 8 weeks. Accordingly the Joint Registrar disposed of the appeal by his order dated 19.3.2001. In the meanwhile, the appellant has also filed F.A. No. 2/2001 before the Joint Registrar, challenging the validity of show cause notice dated 28.9.2000. In the said appeal the Joint Registrar had also granted stay and ultimately the said appeal has also been disposed of by order dated 16.3.2001.

(3.) IT appears that in the meanwhile Joint Registrar, Sagar also issued similar show cause notice to both the appellants on 23.6.2001 mainly on the ground that the appellant No. 2 is being over due debtor of respondent No. 5 and Res. No. 5 having failed to take any action to disqualify the appellant No. 1 despite intimation and instructions, he initiated this action in exercise of his powers under section 19AA (2) of the Act and issued similar show cause notice to both the appellant on 23.6.2001. Legality of this show cause notice has also been challenged by the appellants in this first appeal. But the appellants have not laid any challenge to the order dated 28.7.2001 issued by the learned Joint Registrar under section 19AA(2) of the Act read with rule 46 (3) of the rules 62, framed under the Act and thereby he has again disqualified the appellant No. 1 to hold the post of director on the committee of Res. No. 5 society.