SAHJANAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order of the Minister, Co-operation, respondent 2, dated 25 5.1981 as contained in Annexure 8, under Section 65A of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). By this order, he has stayed the operation of the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent 3, dated 5.5.1981, as contained in Annexure 7, and has, thereby, allowed the members of the managing committee of Bara Panchayat Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter to be called the 'society' which was elected on 20.12.1980 to function.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points some necessary facts have to be stated. Petitioner 2 is a society registered under the Act. The annual general meeting of the society was to be held on 25.11 1979 in spite of the fact that there was an order of restraint passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 24.11.1979. In that election respondent 6 and others were elected as office-bearers. A complaint was filed before the Assistant Registrar by some members of the society The Assistant Registrar, by order dated 25.2.1980, held the election dated 25.11.1979 as null and void and further directed the Block Co-operative Extension Officer to convene the annual general meeting of the society. A copy of the order is Annexure 1. In pursuance of the direction, election was held on 29.3 1980 and petitioner 1 was elected as Chairman of the society. Respondent 6 filed a petition challenging the election of petitioner 1 before the Joint Registrar who stayed the functioning of the committee, which was elected on 29.3.1980, by his order dated 20.5.1980 (Annexure 2). As against that, petitioner 1 moved the Registrar, respondent 3, in revision who directed by his order dated 7.7.1980, that the committee so elected will function till the matter is finally desidcd ; a copy of the order is Annexure 3. The matter was finally beard by the Joint Registrar on 22.9.1980, who held both the meetings, namely, those held on 25.11 1979 and 29.3.1980 as invalid ; a copy of the order dated 22.9.1980 is Annexure 4. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner 1 moved the Registrar who admitted the appeal on 16.12.1980 and further directed that till the bearing of the appeal no election of the society should be held ; a copy of the order is Annexure 5. On 20.12.1980 a meeting was held in which respondents 8 to 21 were elected as office-bearers of the society ; a copy of the proceeding of the same is Annexcre 6. Petitioner 1 filed another application before the Registrar that in spite of the direction some of the respondents had wrongly held the meeting and, therefore, proceeding for contempt of court should be started against them. The learned Registrar, by bis order dated 5.5.1981, admitted the application and ordered that opposite parties 4 to 17 named in the application be restrained from functioning as members of managing committee in view of his earlier order dated 16.12.1980, which is Annexure 5. Agaiast the aforesaid order, respondent 8 moved the Minister, Co-operation, respondent 2, who by his order dated 25.8 1931, stayed the order of the Registrar passed on 5.5.1981 (Annexure 7) and farther directed that the members of the managing committee, which was elected on 20.12.1980, will function till the final hearing of the application and he fixed 23.9.1981 as the next date. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have moved this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that they had filed an application for initiating a proceeding for contempt of court, on which order was passed on 5 5.1981 and the Minister, Co-operation, respondent 2, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the aforesaid order under Section 55A of the Act. He has further submitted that the prayer was for initiating proceeding for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, which is a self contained Act, and, therefore, the application, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as a petition under the Act. Lastly, it has been submitted that respondent 2 has virtually allowed the application without bearing the petitioners, which is against the principles of natural justice, and in that view of the matter, the order is fit to be set aside.