SATISH KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for declaring Section 53-B of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be adumbrated for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the elected president of the M. P. Rajya Hathkargha Bunkar Sangh Maryadit having its head office at Jabalpur. The said Society is registered under Section 9 of the act. It is putforth that the State Government having been conferred powers under Section 3 of the Act has been authorised to appoint a person to be the registrar of Cooperative Societies for the State and may appoint one or more officers to assist him as Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar etc. Under Section 53-B of the Act, the Registrar of cooperative Societies has been empowered to remove an officer of a society in certain circumstances. It is putforth in the petition that Section 53-B of the act confers unbridled and unrestricted powers on the Registrar to remove an. officer of a Society in certain circumstances without consulting the Society. It is averred that the petitioner was working as the President of the Society who was functioning as per law. At that juncture all of a sudden the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies issued a letter dated 19-2-1999 stating that various complaints were received against him with regard to commission of irregularities in day to day working of the Society in violation of the orders passed by the Department under the provisions of the Act, the rules framed thereunder and the bye-laws of the Society. It was put to him by the Department and eventually the Registrar had found the same to have been prima facie proved. Pursuant to the order of the Department dated 19-2-1999, the Managing director of the Society issued a memo dated 24-2-1999 to the petitioner stating therein that the allegations have been found prima facie proved against him and why an action should not be taken against the petitioner for removing him from the Society and to disqualify him as per Section 53-B (1) of the Act after affording opportunity of hearing. The said letter dated 19-2-1999 has been brought on record as Annexure P-l. On the same day a Notification was issued by the Managing Director of the Society informing all the members of the board regarding meeting to be held on 12-3-1999 at 12 noon at the Head office, Jabalpur. Various other facts have been asserted to show how the petitioner was eventually removed by virtue of the order passed by the Additional Registrar. It is also set forth that the petitioner assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 16-4-1999 in Writ Petition No. 1897/99. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition against which a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred and the Division Bench passed an interim order in the Letters patent Appeal. We may clearly state that we are not concerned with it but we have referred to the same for the sake of completeness. What is in controversy before us is the Constitutional validity of Section 53-B of the Act.

(3.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner Section 53-B of the Act is unconstitutional inasmuch as there is no procedure prescribed to be followed by the Registrar to enable him to form an opinion which has to be objective in nature and not subjective. The principles of natural justice and fair play require that before forming an opinion by the Registrar, an opportunity should be given either to the Society or to the officer directed to be removed and in the absence of the same there is conferment of unbridled and unrestricted powers on the Registrar which is defiant of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is urged in the petition, the rules which have been framed under the Act are totally silent with regard to the procedure for the purpose of calling a meeting under the direction of the Registrar issued under Section 53-B of the Act and, therefore, there is no procedural safeguard in arriving at such a conclusion. Section 53-B (2) of the Act has been criticised on the ground that if the society does not take action, the Registrar has to take action and shall afford an opportunity to the affected person and, therefore, in the absence of any provision relating to grant of adequate opportunity to the affected person the provision becomes arbitrary and thereby unconstitutional. It is also urged that absolute powers have been vested in the Registrar without any kind of restriction or reasonableness, to direct the society to take action for removal and disqualify the officer, therefore, the provisions of Section 53-B of the Act are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the society which has come into being for the purpose of developing the cooperative movement in the State has no role in the matter but has to be guided by the mandate of the Registrar. By following the decision of the registrar, the whole scheme of the Act is nullified and, therefore, the provisions are contrary to the scheme of the Act. It is pleaded that grant of opportunity before a bigger body for forming an opinion is one thing and grant of opportunity before removal is another. Such an action can not be justified on the basis of majority. Various other averments have been putforth which need not be referred to inasmuch as they are the repetition of the same. In this factual backdrop the prayer has been made to declare the provision as ultra vires.