BASIALA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY, BASIALA Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GARH SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Basiala Co-operative Agricultural Society, Basiala, Tehsil Garh Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The election of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 15th of November, 1969, and the Committee so elected was to hold office up to 14th November, 1972. Before Committee laid down the charge of its office, it decided, by a resolution dated 27th September, 1972, to hold election of the incoming Committee on 27th October. By this very resolution, the Department was requested to depute an officer to supervise elections. On the date fixed, the quorum was not complete and the meeting for holding the elections was adjourned to 14th November, 1972, on which date a new Committee was duly elected. The Authorised Registrar, Co-operative Societies, presumably being of the view that the term of the Committee had expired on 14th November, 1972 and no fresh elections had been held, appointed an Administrator of the Society under Section 26(1-D) of the Act on 1st December, 1972. The newly elected Committee filed an appeal before the Deputy Secretary to the Government exercising the powers of the Goverment under the Act challenging the appointment of the Administrator by the authorised Registrar. Their appeal was allowed and the Administrator appointed by the authorised Registrar was removed. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 also appeared before the Deputy Secretary and made a representation stating therein that he was also a member of the Society and he had been wrongly kept out of the elections. The Deputy Secretary rightly declined to entertain this application on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had other remedies available to him under the Act. The respondent No. 3 made a similar application to the Assistant Registrar who in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 56 of the Act, appointed respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute. This order of the Assistant Registrar is being challenged in this petition.

(2.) Shri G.S. Grewal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following pleas :-

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and am of the view that there is no merit in either of the contentions raised by him. The gravamen of attack upon Section 56 of the Act is that the Registrar, on receipt of the reference of the dispute, could either decide himself or transfer it for disposal to an authorized Registrar, or refer it for disposal to one arbitrator. According to the learned counsel the three modes of the disposal of the dispute leave a very wide discretion in the Registrar and the statute should have provided some criteria or a guideline enabling the Registrar to adopt one or the other mode. It is, however, not disputed that Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is concerned with the entire administration of the work relating to the Co-operative Societies in the State. In order to relieve him of excessive work, the Government can appoint some other officers to exercise the powers of Registrar. When one or more officers of co-ordinate jurisdiction are appointed, to judicially decide private disputes on the basis of recognized principles of law, it cannot be said that the situation created either offends Article 14 of the Constitution or any other provisions of law. The provision for making a reference to one arbitrator has also been made for a special purpose. The disputes which arise between the Societies and their members are of diverse nature. In some cases, it may be more advisable to appoint a specially equipped person to decide a particular type of a dispute. Again, if the Registrar or his colleague having co-ordinate jurisdiction are overburdened with work, the disputes may have to be entrusted to an outside arbitrator or a subordinate officer of the Department Designated as an Arbitrator by the Registrar. The main thing is that whoever decides these disputes, has to conform to the principles of natural justice and has to hear both the parties before he gives a final decision. It is, no doubt, true that when a dispute is decided by the Registrar himself, then the aggrieved person is left with only one remedy of filing an appeal before the State Government and if it is decided by an Arbitrator then an appeal lies before the Registrar and, in some cases, a further revision may lie before the State Government. But, this situation can also be justified on the basis of reasonable classification. When the matter is decided by a high functionary of the Department, then it looks more proper that the person aggrieved should be afforded only one remedy. The first contention raised by the learned counsel is, therefore, repelled.