RAM KUMAR MUKHIYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The single petitioner Ram Kumar Mukhiya and respondent No. 6 Paltan Mukhiya seem to be engaged in a bitter fight over the settlement and control of the many Government jalkars in two blocks in the District of Darbhanga. The fight for the control of the Jalkars is manifested before the departmental authorities and the Courts in a controversy over an order passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies (A.R.C.S.) by which he recalled his earlier order approving the division of a self sufficient co-operative society and cancelled the certificate of registration of the two societies, resulting from the division of the erstwhile society.

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated as follows ; A co-operative society under the name of Kusheshwarasthan Fishermens' Co-operative Society was registered in the year 1963 under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. The area of operation of the Society was the whole of the undivided Kusheshwarasthan block. In 1994 Kusheshwarasthan block was divided by a Government notification into two blocks, namely, Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand and Kusheshwarasthan Purvi Prakhand. On 17-1-1997 the Bihar Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 came into force and on 26-3-1998 the Society got itself converted into a self-supporting Society under the name of Kusheshwarasthan Matsyajivi Swavlambi Sahkhari Samiti Limited in terms of Section 5 (1 )(v) of the Act. The self-supporting society, like the previous society, had its area of operation over both the blocks which had resulted from the division of the erstwhile Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand. These facts are admitted by all concerned but from this stage one enters into the zone of dispute. According to the contesting respondent, the general body of the self-supporting society in its meeting held on 25-12-1998 passed resolution No. 14 taking the decision for the division of the society into two societies, one with the area of operation over Kusheswarasthan Prakhand and the other having its area of operation over Kusheshwarasthan Purvi Prakhand. The A.R.C.S. Benipur Anchal, Benipur was moved for issuance of registration certificates to the two new societies. The A.R.C.S. gave approval to the division of the self-supporting society under Section 11(1) of the 1996 Act and on 19-8-1999 issued registration certificates to the two societies resulting from the division of the erstwhile society namely (i) Kusheshwarasthan Purvi Prakhand Matsyajivi Swavlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Kewatgama and (ii) Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand Matsyajivi Swavlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Satighat.

(3.) The petitioner who was a member of the undivided society and who came on the role of members of one of the two societies resulting from its division made a complaint before the A.R.C.S. with regard to the division of the erstwhile society. On the complaint the A.R.C.S. issued a show-cause notice, dated 26-10-1999 to one Baidyanath Mukhiya (Respondent No. 8) who was elected as the Chairman of he undivided society in the general body meeting on 25-12-1998 and who had moved the A.R.C.S. for giving approval to the division of the society and for the registration of the two resultant societies. According to the contesting respondent, no notice was issued to the office-bearers of the two societies that had come into existence as a result of the division of the erstwhile society and which were functioning when the controversy arose. Further, according to the respondent, the notice, dated 26-10-1999 was despatched on 29-10-1999 and was received by Baidyanath Mukhiya on 2-11-1999 and even though he went to the A.R.C.S. with his show-cause, the A.R.C.S. declined to entertain or accept the show-cause on the ground that it was being filed beyond the time allowed in the notice and passed the order, dated 4-11-1999 rejecting the division of the erstwhile society and cancelling the registration of the two societies that came into being as a result of the division. In that order the A. R.C.S. held that the division of the erstwhile society was made be deceit and fraud and hence, the approval given to the division was liable to be cancelled. As we shall see presently this order passed by A.R.C.S. on 4-11-1999 has generated much heat and controversy.