SOMANATH PRUSTY Vs. DIRECTOR OF TEXTILES ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the legality of decisive view of the Deputy Director of Textiles, Orissa conveyed to the Assitant Director of Textiles, Baripada (opposite party No. 3), that the petitioner was not eligible to continue as Member or President of Dihirakula Weavers' Co-operative Society (opposite party No. 4) having incurred disability under the provisions of Section 28 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) Petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction by the Deputy Director, his membership and consequentially the Presidentship of the Committee of the society is being withdrawn on deemed vacation of office. According to him, the background for the Deputy Director's decision is a decision under Section 70 of the Act in Dispute Case No. 3/89-90. Two points are raised to assail legality of the direction, viz., (a) the decision which is one under Section 28 (5), was taken without due notice and/or opportunity, and (b) the Arbitrator-cum-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who had passed the award in Dispute Case No. 3/89-90 was not authorised in law to render the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, i. e, the Orissa State Handloom Weavers' Co-operarive Societies Limited, represented by its Managing Director has submitted that Section 28 (5) comes into operation where a disqualification has been incurred under sub-sections (3), (3.a) (4) and (4-a) of the said Section, and therefore has no application to the facts of the case. The learned connsel for the State, however, submitted that even though action under Section 28 (5) was taken, in view of the fact that there was already an adjudication that there was defalcation of society's fund of a substantial amount, and the award has been communicated to the petitioner, there is no substance in the contention that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and/or that no due opportunity was granted to the petitioner. It was also submitted that the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to pass the award.