SATISH KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure P-5) of respondent No. 3 Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

(2.) The petitioner is President of respondent No. 2 M.P. Rajya Hathkargha Bunkar Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Jabalpur. There were several complaints against him alleging negligence and fraud in the discharge of his duties. A preliminary inquiry was conducted . Thereafter, by the letter dated 19-2-1999 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in exercise of the power under Section 53-B of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) called upon the respondent No. 2 Society to remove the President from his office and to disqualify him from holding the same for a period of three years after affording opportunity of hearing to him. The Managing Director of the Society served show cause notice dated 24-2-1999 upon the petitioner. That is Annexure P-1. A meeting of the Board of Directors was convened and held on 19-3-1999 to consider the charges against the petitioner. That meeting was presided over by him as President. An objection to this effect was raised but he turned it down. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice in that meeting. A copy of the reply is Annexure P3. There were three nominated members present in this meeting. They were not allowed to vote. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is Annexure P4. It is recorded therein that the proposal to remove the petitioner on various charges failed by 8 : 9 votes. By the impugned letter dated 16-4-1999 the Society has again been called upon to take action as per letter dated 19-2-1999 as no clear or specific decision was taken in the meeting held on 19-3-1999. It has been expressed in the impugned order that the President against whom the charges were to be considered could not preside over that meeting and the nominated members could not be prevented to vote in this meeting.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that as per Rule 43(5) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules), he was entitled to preside over the meeting as he was present in that meeting. There is no provision in the Act or the rules to debar him from doing so. The State Government has not nominated any member on the Board of Directors as per Section 52(1) of the Act and therefore they had no right to vote. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The proposal to remove the petitioner from the President of the Society has already failed and the Additional Registrar has no power to annul the said resolution of the Board. The said proposal cannot be reconsidered.