GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated March 17, 1972 (Annexure 'A') and dated August 22, 1972 (Annexure 'B') of the respondent Nos. 3 and 1 respectively.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition are that the Chhokran Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Chhokran, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the Society) was registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on July 28, 1962. The working of the Society was going on smoothly and there was no complaint against the management. The Managing Committee of the Society was suspended under Section 26 of the Act on May 12, 1971, on the ground of negligence in the performance of the duties by the members thereof and for the default in making the payments of dues. An Administrator was appointed by the Registrar after suspension of the Committee without giving any opportunity to the Society to raise objections. Shri Karnail Singh, respondent No. 4, was appointed as the Administrator of the Society who worked as such till March 17, 1972. The Registrar, by his order dated March 17, 1972, (Annexure 'A') ordered that the Society be wound up under Section 57 of the Act. He also appointed a Liquidator under Section 58 of the Act by the same order. A revision petition was filed by the petitioners before the Secretary to the Government, Punjab, under Section 69 of the Act, which was dismissed by him by his order dated August 22, 1972 (Annexure 'B'). The aforesaid orders are illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The petition has been contested by the respondent. A return has been filed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Malerkotla. It is, inter alia, stated by him that an amount of Rs. 17,116/- was embezzled by Gobinder Singh Secretary. A large number of fictitious bonds were filled in the name of the members and the amount was embezzled by Gobinder Singh, petitioner No. 2 and Karnail Singh, petitioner No. 3, who utilized the amount for their personal benefits. He defended orders of the respondent Nos. 3 and 1 and state that they were legal and proper orders.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice of winding up was given by respondent No. 1 to the members of the Society as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the order of winding up was illegal and liable to be set aside on this ground. Mr. Ashri submits that an inquiry was ordered to be conducted under Section 50 of the Act and the Inquiry Officer made a report against the affairs of the Society after contacting the members thereof. A show cause notice was given on the basis of the inquiry report to the Administrator of the Society on March 6, 1972, who, after discussing the objections with the members, requested him for winding up the Society. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act says that the Registrar shall communicate a brief summary of the report of the inquiry to the Society, the financing institutions, if any, to which the society is affiliated, and to the persons or authority, if any, at whose instance the inquiry is made. 'Co-operative Society' has been defined in sub-section (c) of Section 2 and it means a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act. A Co-operative Society is a corporate body and its affairs are managed by the members of the Committee. The 'Committee' has been defined in sub-section (b) of Section 2 and it means the governing body of a co-operative society by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted. Under sub-section (1 D) of Section 26 of the Act, if any Committee has ceased to hold office and no Committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and bye-laws made thereunder, the Registrar can appoint an Administrator. After the Administrator is appointed, he has to manage the affairs of the Society. The requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 50 is that the summary of the report is to be communicated to the Society. It means that whosoever is managing the affairs of the Society is to be intimated about the report. The affidavit of the respondents shows that an intimation was given to the Administrator. In my view, it was a proper service on the Society. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the summary should have been communicated to all the members of the Society. He has, however, not been able to refer to any Section of the Act or any Rule made thereunder in support of his contention. In the circumstances, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected.