ADHIKRAMIT SANCHALAK MANDAL NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK MYDT INDORE Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sharma Chairman, 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of Jt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Indore passed u/s. 53 (1) on 22/3/2007.

(2.) Brief facts pertaining to this appeal are such that the sperseded board of the appellants is the erstwhile elected board of the respondent No. 2, Indore Nagrik Sahakari Bank, Indore. The elections of the superseded board took place on 20/8/2002. Thus the natural term of this board would have expired on 19/8/2007. However, the Joint Registrar, Respondent No. 1 on 14/12/2006 issued a show cause notice u/s. 53 (2) leveling as many as 14 allegations for them to show cause as to why the Board be not superseded u/s. 53 (1) for alleged irregularities. Some documents were sought by the appellants on 3.1.2007, but the appellants were directed to approach the respondent Bank for perusal of the record. Even the opportunity for submitting reply was closed on 5.2.2007. An application u/s 80 was preferred by the appellants before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhopal where case 80-426/06-07 was registered and on 23/3/2007 the Additional Registrar, hearing the case also requisitioned the record of the Joint Registrar, However, on 22/3/2007, Joint Registrar passed the final order u/s. 53 (1) superseding the board of the appellants and appointed a committee to manage the affairs of it for one year.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri J.R Yadav in support of his case stated that the provision requiring the previous consultaion with the Reserve Bank of India has not been complied. The appellants.have not been provided proper opportunity by providing them the documents they have sought. The action u/s. 53 (1) and 53 (2) should precede audit, enquiry or inspection u/s. 58, 59 and 60 respectively, but the same has not been done. Appellants have not been provided an opportunity to rectify the defects required under Section 61. Every Director has not been noticed as required under the law. Inspite of transfer application u/s. 80 before the Registrar, the Joint Registrar has hastily passed the order. The compliance of 53 (7) has not been done. Supersession of the Board is a grave punishment. Therefore as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, it should be the last option but respondent has acted rather hastily on it and the order of the Joint Registrar does not specify the period for which the Board of appellants has been superseded. The order in that manner becomes infructuous after the expiry of one year i.e. 21/3/2008.