ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance made in the petition is that the Managing Committee of the Bahadurpur Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Bahadurpur, District Kurukshetra, hereinafter referred to as the Society, has been suspended in the absence of any opportunity given to it to explain its position. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that reports were made against the Society by the Executive Officer of the Financing Bank and the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Kurukshetra, on the basis of which the impugned action has been taken against it.

(2.) In Civil Writ No. 8358 of 1976 (Shadipur Co-operative Agricultural Service Society V. State of Haryana and others) decided on January 29, 1977, we held that an order of suspension of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society cannot be passed without affording it an opportunity of explaining its position vis-a-vis the allegations made against it. Mr. Nehra, learned Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, states that the aforementioned view taken by us is not correct and runs contrary to the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court Hari Singh V. Director of Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1974 76 PunLR 789 In the last mentioned case, however, it was held that before a Sarpanch was suspended under section 102 of the Gram Panchayat Act, he was not entitled to a prior opportunity of being heard. That case is clearly distinguishable. A Sarpanch has no monetary stakes, whereas the members of a Co-operative Society, which is a business institution, stand prejudicially affected even if their right to manage the affairs of the Co-operative Society is taken away for a short time. It is no doubt true that in section 27 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, there is no express provision making it incumbent upon the Registrar to pass an order of suspension after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Society, but at the same time that section, even by implication, does not rule out the application of the principles of natural justice. All laws are presumed to operate in a fair manner and when civil rights of the parties are involved, Courts usually infer that the authority acting under a statute is under an implied duty to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, endorse the view taken by us in the case of Shadipur Co-operative Agricultural Service Society .

(3.) In Little Gibbs Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Bombay and another V. The State of Maharashtra and others, 1972 AIR(Bom) 108 similar view was expressed but in that case the statute expressly provided that an opportunity of hearing should be given to a Co-operative Society before action was taken against it. We are of the view that absence of an express provision regarding hearing being given to the Managing Committee of a Society before its suspension does not make any difference and the Registrar is under the general law, bound to inform the Society of the allegations made against it and to consider its reply before taking an action against it even if such action is of a temporary nature like its suspension. We, accordingly, allow this petition and quash the impugned order. It shall, however, be open to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to proceed against the Society in accordance with law as explained above. No costs.