PARAMESWAR BAGB Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Artice 226 of the Constitution is by the erstwhile members of the Board of Directors of Hindustan Aeronautics Emplowees' Co-operative Credit Society Limited at Sunabeda (hereafter referred to as the 'Society') challenging the supersession of the Board of Directors by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (opposite party No. 2) in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Oris: a Co-operative Societies Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') and appointment of opposite party No. 3 as administrator of the Society.

(2.) The Society was registered under the Act in December 1979. Opposite party No. 2 issued a notice on 9-6-1980 to the petitioners to show ceuse as to why the Board may hot be superseded. The Koraput Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., at Jevpore, happens to be the financing bak of the Society Cause was shown as directed on 22-6-1980. In the notice (Annexure-1) opposite party No. 2 had fixed 24-6-1980 for persona! hearing. Petitioners allege that they attended the office of the opposite party No. 2 for personal hearing on the date indicated, but as he was absent from the office personal hearing was not given. Petitioners had applied for fixing another date for hearing as alleged in paragraph 9 of their writ petition. On 27-6-1980, the Executive Comittee of the financing bankresolved agreeing to supersession and on 28-6-1980. that fact was duly communicated to opposite party No. 2, The Board of Direcotrs of the financing bank confirmed the action of the Executive Committee on 6-7-1980-On 24-7-1980 the Board of Directors was superseded by order under Annexure-2. This writ application was filed on 18-9-1980 challenging the order of supersession mainly on the ground that consultation under Section 32 (4) of the Act had not been made prior to issue of the notice and relaiance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa (AIR 1979 Ori. 143) in support of the contention-

(3.) A counter-affidvait was filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly by opposite party No. 2 denying alt the allegations and supporting the action taken. Petitioners filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit while Opposite party No. 2 filed an affidavit in opposition to the assertions in the rejoinder. Further affidavits were filed on either side thereafter.