UMA CHARAN BISHOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure 4, an order passed by the Chief District Veterinary Officer -cum -Deputy Registrar of Co -operative Societies, Berhamour, on 19 -3 -1993 directing winding up of Karnoli Poultry Producers Co -operative Society is impugned before us. The petitioner is the elected member from the society to the Aska Co -operative Central Bank Ltd, and since because of the order of winding up he is to Jose membership of the Committee of Management of the Bank, he seeks the relief of quashing of the order. The sole ground urged by Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in passing the order the principle of natural justice was not complied with inasmuch as no hearing was given to the society before the winding up was directed.

(2.) AS the impugned order shows it is purported to have been exercised Under Section 72 (1) of the Orissa Co -operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the reason that it appeared to the Deputy Registrar that the society has ceased functioning as there was no Board of Directors meeting for the year 1991 -92 as revealed from the inspection report of the SDFO -cum -Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Societies on 13 -3 -1993. The order speaks of no meeting to have been held in the year '1991 -92 and 1991 -92' which is obviously a mistake as is explained by the learned Additional Government Advocate saying that the meetings were not held during the period 1991 and 1992. Rule being issued counter affidavit has been filed reiterating the reason as in the order itself that no meetings were held and that the order of winding up was passed validly under Sec, 72 of the Act. - -

(3.) WE are not impressed by the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that since the order has been passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of powers Under Section 72 (1) and that Section does not provide for issue of any notice before passing of the order, compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem is not necessary. It has by now become for deeply imbeded in our constitutional set -up that rules of natural justice are to be regarded as inbuilt into all relevant statutory provisions and command compliance with it before any administrative or quasi -judicial order is passed, unless the adoption of such procedure is either specifically or impliedly excepted. Hence even if Section 11 dose not say in so many words that before any order winding up a society is passed it is entitled to a hearing, yet it has to be taken that such hearing was necessary before the order could have been passed. The legal position on the issue has been now even raised to the level that even if the authority charged with the duty to comply with the principles of natural justice is of the opinion that had a notice been issued the notice could not have anything more to say than the facts already existing before it, yet the principles are to be complied with end if not so done, the order would become vitiated. Reference may be made to AIR 1981 SC 818 (Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India, etc.). A question arose before this Court in AIR 1973 Orissa 148 (The Govindpur Agricultural Credit Co -operative Society and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Societies and Anr.) where Under Section 14 (3), as it stood then, the Registrar had the authority, after an inspection made Under Section 64 or an enquiry held Under Section 65, to direct amalgamation of two or more societies if the societies and same or overlapping or adjoining areas of operation and had similar objects, or could direct a society also to be divided into two societies. An order of amalgamation passed by the Registrar without notice to the societies which were to be amalgamated being impugned before the Court, it was decided that without notice to the affected societies, the order was bad. In the present case apart from the non -observance of natural justice, it also appears that the factual back ground on the basis of which order was passed was not correct as in the inspection report itself it was mentioned that five meetings had been held in 1991 and the society was supersession during 1992 for which no meeting could have been held. In that view of the matter, the order has become bad in law.