GANPAT RAM POONIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this intra -court appeal, the petitioner -appellant seeks to question the order dated 28.01.2010 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1342/2009.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred the writ petition aforesaid in challenge to the order dated 11.02.2009 (Annex. 6) issued by the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur appointing an Administrator to manage the affairs of Nagaur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited ('the Sangh') with the submissions that the said Sangh is a registered Co -operative Society under the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'); and as per the minutes dated 18.05.2007, 10 Directors were elected with the petitioner being the Chairman. It was submitted that in the meeting dated 17.08.2007, the said Board of Directors resolved to hold the elections through the Co -operative Election Authority but the elections were not conducted by the respondents; that for not holding of the elections by the respondents, the appellant and the other nominated persons continued; and that the Sangh has been working properly and smoothly under the Chairmanship of the appellant. The petitioner -appellant stated the grievance that all of a sudden and in complete disregard to the objects of the Act of 2001, the Registrar proceeded to pass an order dated 11.02.2009 in purported exercise of the powers under Section 30(2A) ibid, superseded the elected Board, and appointed the Collector, Nagaur as Administrator.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge found indisputable the position that the tenure of the board had come to an end in view of proviso to Section 27 (1) of the Act of 2001; and, in the given circumstances, found nothing of illegality in the order appointing Administrator. The suggestions about mala fides were also rejected finding it to be a case of want of specific allegations and noticing that in fact, the petitioner -appellant was permitted to continue even beyond the term under the statute. The learned Single Judge also found baseless the submissions about denial of opportunity of hearing with the observation that the petitioner had failed to show any of his existing right and infringement thereof and, rather, the impugned order having been passed only as required by law. The learned Single Judge also found baseless the arguments advanced with reference to the amendment made in the month of October 2009 with the observations that the impugned order of appointment of Administrator was passed in the month of February 2009; and that only the 'punctuation marks' had been altered and not the provisions contained in Section 30(2A) ibid.