GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the shareholders of Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills, Morinda, and members of the Bhartiya Kisan Union instituted a petition seeking a writ or quo-warranto against Shri Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 4, with regard to his occupying the post of Managing Director of the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., called SUGARFED, which is an apex body registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 . The case of the petitioners was that the SUGARFED was an instrumentality of the government and, therefore, it was covered under Article 12 of the Constitution & the present petition was maintainable. Respondent No. 4 was previously a member of the Indian Administrative Services, Punjab Cadre He was appointed Managing Director. Shortly before his retirement, on superannuation he was reappointed as Managing Director on terms and conditions appearing in Annexure P.3 dated 28-4-1989 for a period of one year. His appointment as Managing Director was challenged on the ground that it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 26 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 , Bye-law, framed thereunder and the relevant service rules framed under section 84-A of the Act. According to these provisions, no person could a appointed as Managing Director after attaining the age of 58 unless the Board of Directors relaxed the upper age limit with the prior approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The relaxation was possible only in the case of technical person and that too with the approval of the Registrar.

(2.) Along with the petition, the present civil miscellaneous was filed stating that the petitioners had a prima facie; that if respondent No. 4 was allowed to function as Managing Director, the petitioners as well as other shareholders will suffer irreparable injury, that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioners, and, therefore, respondent No. 4 should be restrained from functioning as Managing Director till decision of the writ petition.

(3.) Written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and a joint written statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, in its written statement filed through Shri J.S. Gill, IAS, Secretary to Government Punjab, Co-operation Department, denied that SUGARFED was an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Out of a share capital of 1,10,14,000/-, the share-holding of the State of Punjab was Rs. 20 lass. The remaining shares were with the member Co-operative societies. It was further submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Managing Director was duly approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as Supervisory officer in exercise of powers under Bye-law law 16.2 (iii) of the Bye-law. In para 13, it was further stated as under, "The appointment of respondent No. 4 has been made keeping in view the fact that) he has gained lot of experience and expertise and had successfully executed live new projects and a number of expansion projects nd four projects of the installation of new Cooperative Sugar Mills were already half way." To the same effect is the written statement filed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3 and 4, i.e. SUGARFED and Shri Gurdev Singh, also filed a written statement on these lines.