BRIJ KISHORE ARORA Vs. ADMINISTRATOR U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 5 the Chandigarh State Co-operative Bank Limited, Chandigarh is a Co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (Hereinafter called "the Act") as amended by the Punjab Legislature upto November 1, 1966. The petitioner was serving as a Junior Accountant with the Bank, when he wasv dismissed from service vide order dated November 9, 1984. In the meantime as the affairs of the bank were not being run in a proper manner the Union Territory, Administration removed the Managing Committee of the Bank and appointed an Administrator on December 29, 1981, who actually took over on January 1,1982. As the maximum term for which,an Administrator could hold office had been fixed at five-years under Section 27 of the Act, the Registrar removed the Administrator but appointed a Supervisor instead vide Annexure P-2 dated September 9, 1987. The period of the Supervisor was further extended under Annexure P-3 dated April 18, 1988. As there were allegations against the petitioner of having deprived the bank of a very large sum of money, the Supervisor vide resolution passed on November 3, 1987, Annexure P-6 to the petition, raised a dispute against him and referred it under Section 55 and 56 of the Act, to the arbitration of Shri Labh Singh, Inspector, Co-operative Societies on November 23, 1987 by order Annexure P-4 to the petition. This reference led to the filing of the present writ petition impugning the orders Annexure P-6, primarily on the ground that as the maximum period provided under Section 27 of the Act for the continuance of an Administrator by whatever name called was to be five years and no more and this period having come to an end on December 31, 1986 no reference to arbitration could be made thereafter and the proceedings taken pursuant to the resolution, were without jurisdiction. In support of his argument, Mr. B. S. Khoji, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Balwant Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 Punjab Law Journal 427, and an unreported judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5700 of 1989, decided on September 27, 1989 (= 1994 PLJ 6) Balwant Singh and others v. The Union Territory Administration, and appended as Annexure P-9 to the writ petition. It has also been submitted by Mr. Khoji, that passing of a valid resolution was a sine qua non for the initiation of arbitration proceedings under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act and if such a resolution was not in order, no proceedings could be taken pursuant thereto. Reliance for this submission has also been placed on Vice Chancellor, Utkal University and others v. S. K. Ghosh and others, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 217 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Udat Bhagat Rani. Nazool Land Co-op. Society v. Leekal Singh and others, 1980 (2) LLR 112 (1981 PLJ 79).

(2.) In the replies filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been admitted that an Administrator could not continue in office beyond a period of five years in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, but it has been asserted that a Supervisor was not an Administrator and the sanction for the appointment of a Supervisor was envisaged by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Singh and others v. Shri S. L. Kapur, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab and others, 1974 PLJ 568. The responents have also urged in addition that any action taken by the Administrator or a Supervisor of the Committee whose appointment was subsequently held to be bad, was duly deemed to have been validated by Section 29 of the Act, and ipso-facto, the reference to arbitration was also in order.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and also the judgments cited at the bar.