TOM MARSHALL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge posed in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the directions issued by the Registrar, Coop Societies, U.T., Chandigarh second respondent herein to the Chandigarh State Coop. Bank Ltd., Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, third respondent, stopping bank operation of the petitioner which is house building society.

(2.) Briefly put, it is the case of the petitioner that it is having its account with the third respondent and the second respondent, without any authority of law and without issuing any notice on affording opportunity of hearing directed the third respondent to stop operation of the Bank account of the petitioner-Society, with the result, cheques issued by the petitioner are being dishonoured.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement, wherein, by way of preliminary objections, it has been pleaded that the Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh is competent to issue any directive for the successful conduct of the business of the Society under Rule 45 of the Punjab Coop. Societies Rules, 1963 (as applicable to the U.T. Chandigarh). In the present case, one Shri Amarjit Singh, Inspector (under suspension), Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh, was looking after the affairs of petitioner-Society in his capacity as Administrator of the Society appointed under Section 27 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. In spite of being rejected by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh, the said Administrator enrolled 16 members in the Society out of which four were totally outsiders. Out of these newly enrolled members by the said Administrator, the Managing Committee was constituted in a totally illegal manner. The said Managing Committee took over the management of the Society w.e.f. April 19, 2002. Thereafter, a complaint dated July 30, 2002 was received which was signed by 17 allottee members, wherein the aforesaid irregularity was pointed out and it was complained that these so-called members enrolled by the Administrator were controlling the Managing Committee of the Society and were misusing the funds of the Society by appointing their close relative as contractor for the construction work of the flats of the Society. The aforesaid complaint was followed by another letter written by one Shri Gopal Gupta, Convener, Joint Action Committee. The Ajanta House Building Society Ltd., which, was received by the second respondent on August 7, 2002, Annexure R-1. The matter was examined by the second respondent and it was decided to issue a show cause notice to the Managing Committee under Section 27 of the Act which was ordered to be issued on August 9, 2002, Annexure R-2. In order to protect the interest of the Society and to safeguard the hard earned money of the members of the Society, second respondent also issued a directive on August 9, 2002 to the third respondent to stop operation of the bank account of the Society, Annexure R-3.