HARNEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to have been a Cashier of the Khai Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited Khai, Post Office Lehragagga (hereinafter referred to as the Society). About a year and a half back, a Managing Committee of the Society consisting of five members was elected. The petitioner was one of them and was entrusted with the duties of a Cashier. It is alleged that a show-cause notice was sent by the authorised Registrar to the President of the Society calling upon him to urge the grounds, if any, against the proposed order of the removal of the Managing Committee. According to the petitioner, Shri Surjit Singh, respondent No. 6, President of the Society was inimically disposed towards him and he did not bring this fact to his notice or to the notice of the other members. The result was that the individual members of the Managing Committee could not submit any explanation or reply to the show-cause notice. The authorised Registrar, vide his order dated 15th January, 1973, copy Annexure 'A' to the petition, ordered the removal of the Society which is being challenged in this petition.

(2.) Respondent No. 6 has not filed any return. The return filed on behalf of the authorised Registrar shows that the notice was, in fact, served upon the President and not upon any other individual member of the Managing Committee. If the President of the Society can be regarded as its principal executive officer then prima facie, a notice served upon him would be deemed to be a notice served upon all the members of the Managing Committee. The Rules do not lay down that a notice to show-cause to the Managing Committee to be superseded should be served on all the individual members of the Managing Committee. In this situation, it is inherent that notice should be served upon such a member of the Managing Committee who is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the Society. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to bye-law 27 of the Model Bye-laws which lays down that the President or in his absence the Vice-President, shall preside over the meetings of the general body. Apart from this, no other statutory functions of the President have been specified. On the other hand, bye-law 44 enumerates the functions of a Secretary. Sub-bye-law (4) of this bye-law lays down that it would be the duty of the Secretary to sign on behalf of the Society to conduct its correspondence. In the face of this bye-law, it is reasonable to assume that it was primarily the duty of the Secretary to receive communications addressed to the Society. If an order or direction issued by the Government or the authorised Registrar is proved to have been served upon the Secretary then it would be deemed to have been served upon the Society, its Managing Committee and all other members of the Managing Committee. Since, admittedly, in this case, notice was served upon the President and not upon the Secretary, it cannot be said that a notice had been served upon the Society. The result is that in the eye of law the action regarding supersession had been taken against the Society without affording it a proper opportunity to show-cause against the action. On this short ground, the petition deserves to succeed and I order accordingly.