DURGA SHANKAR KAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 30-3-1981 (Annexure-1). passed by opposite party No.2 under S.32(1) of the Orissa Co-operative societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Act") superseding the Committee of Management of Kalahandi Wholesale Consumers Stores (hereinafter referred to as "the Society" and appointing the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhawanipatna as Administrator of the Society under S.32(1)(b) of the Act.

(2.) The Society is a "Central Society" within the meaning of S.2 (h-2) of the Act. Petitioner is the President and opposite parties 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the Directors of the Committee of Management of the Society. It is alleged that the opposite party No.2 N. Madhav Rao, who is Assistant Registrar and not Dy. Registrar of Co-op Societies, Bhawanipatna, issued a notice under S.32(1) of the Act on 23-1-1981 calling upon the members of the Committee to show cause as to why the Committee should not be superseded on the ground of mismanagement. On service of notice the petitioner submitted his show cause contending, inter alia, that the charges of mismanagement were grossly mala fide and outcome of political vendetta and had been issued at the behest of the Minister in charge of Co-operation in the Government of Orissa. The petitioner prayed for being given an opportunity of personal hearing. It is contended that without giving an opportunity of personal hearing the opposite party No.2 passed the impugned order on 30-3-1981. The impugned order is attacked mainly on the following grounds : (1) that the financing bank (O.P. No.5) was not consulted by O.P.No.2 before initiating action under S.32(1) of the Act. (2) that no opportunity of personal hearing was given, though specifically asked for. (3) that opposite party No.2 N. Madhav Rao had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice (Annexure-2) and to pass the impugned order (Annexure-1), because firstly, he is a Director of the Committee of Management and the alleged laches arc attributable to him also and in any event, he is incompetent to remove himself which he has purported to do under Annexure-1, and secondly, he is Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhawanipatna, and, as such, cannot act under S.32 on behalf of the Registrar as delegation of power under S.32 has been made to the Deputy Registrars only.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 to 4 it is maintained that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 24-1-1981 and the impugned order was passed on 30-3-1981 and the financing bank had been consulted on 14-1-1981, that is, before the issue of show cause notice, and the financing bank had given its written consent on 13-2-1981, that is, before the impugned order was passed. It is also maintained that opposite party No.2 has been given the power of the Deputy Registrar by the Government of Orissa and the said opposite party No.2 acting as the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhawanipatna, has passed the impugned order. It is further maintained that the show cause filed by the petitioner was duly considered along with the relevant records of the Society and the impugned order was passed giving detailed reasons for supersession and it was not felt necessary to give a personal hearing to the petitioner.