SOHAN MEHRA Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOCYETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the Chairman of Citizen Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd., Indore and member of the Board of Directors also. The Board was superseded by order dated 29.4,92 passed by respondent No. 1 and the Bank was ordered to be winding-up and a Liquidator was appointed by order dated 23.2.93. It seems that some allegations of surcharge were made against some persons including the appellant and respondent No. 3 was appointed as Enquiry Officer to ascertain whether any case of surcharge was made out against them. Respondent No. 3 issued three notices in exercise of powers under Section 63 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. to the appellant asking him to appear before him to face the inquiry, which was not. however, concluded.

(2.) Meanwhile. M.P. Co-operative Societies Act was amended by Amendment Act of 1994. which came into force on 8.5.94. deleting Section 63. Respondent No. 3. thereafter is said to have issued a circular No. 552. dated 27.5.94 requiring all concerned to return the pending inquiries to the concerning Co-operative Societies, for consideration in their General Meetings and for appropriate proceedings against the delinquent office bearers in Civil Courts under Section 64. if so advised. Consequently, respondent No. 3 addressed a communication to respondent No. 2 stating that no enquiry could be continued in respect of surcharge, consequent upon relation of Section 63. It is submitted that files of inquiry against appellant were accordingly returned to respondent No. 2 for being forwarded to the concerned Co-operative Society, and investigation under Section 63(1) was ended.

(3.) At this stage, Board of Revenue appears to have rendered decision in Appeal No. 145-1/92 on 13.10.94 filed by persons against whom surcharge proceedings stood concluded, holding that pending proceedings were not affected by the deletion of Section 63 and the Board was competent to hear the appeals. Taking clue from this, respondent No. 1 again issued a circular on 16.1.95 informing all concerned that pending proceedings for surcharge should be continued. In compliance, respondent No. 3 issued fresh notice to appellant on 3.11.95 under Section 63(1) calling upon him to appear for facing the investigation on the same subject matter, He replied on 25.11.95 contending that a closed investigation could not be reopened after deletion of Section 63. and that the action of respondent No. 3 was without jurisdiction, His objection was overruled and he was directed to file reply to the notice.