BALAK RAM SHARMA Vs. EX-COMMITTEE OF BAGHAL LAND LOOSERS TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DARLAGHAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ordinarily, this Court would have passed a short order in the matter allowing the writ petition as it is established on record that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order.

(2.) The circumstances impel upon this Court to state something more, as the mode and manner in which the orders have been passed by the authorities vested with quasi-judicial powers under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (for short the 'Act') is not at all satisfactory and cannot, therefore, be countenanced.

(3.) At this stage, it would be necessary to advert to the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the managing committee of respondent No. 2-society on 20.9.2012, which was got enquired into through the District Audit Officer by respondent No. 4-Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Solan. The report was submitted to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies who, in turn, observed that the managing committee of the society had committed irregularities and violated the provisions of the Act, H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 (for short the 'Rules) and Bye-Laws and acted in a manner, which was prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the society and its members, as it had resulted in financial loss of the society. Accordingly, Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide order dated 21.2003 initiated an inquiry under Section 69 of the Act against the erring members of the managing committee and the officials of the society. The Block Inspector, Co-operative Societies, i.e. respondent No. 5, Kunihar was appointed to inquire into the alleged irregularities and submit fact finding report as per order dated 30.201 Accordingly, respondent No. 5 conducted an inquiry and submitted his report to respondent No.4 on 4.1.2014, holding that the charges against the ex committee of respondent No. 2 stood proved.