RAM KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners whereby they have prayed for quashing the order of the Assistant Registrar Annexure 8 and that of the Additional Registrar Ex. 9 dated 28th of March, 1975 and 5th of April, 1976 respectively.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are as follows : At all relavant times the petitioner Ram Kumar was the member of the Executive Committee of the Nagaur Swarnkar Namak Utpadak Sahkari Samiti. The petitioner No. 2 Smt. Hira Devi was the ordinary member of the Sahkari Samiti and petitioner No. 3 Fateh Chand was its President, The petitioner No. 4 was the Treasurer of the said Sahkari Samiti. At that time Mohanlal the respondent No. 4 was the Secretary of the said society. It appears that there were rival groups in the society and each one was making a bid to remove the members of the other side. On 30th of June, 1974 vide Ex. 3 petitioners were removed from the membership of the society by a resolution dated 30th June 1974 passed in the general meeting of the said Sahkari' Samiti. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said resolution and moved the Assistant Registrar Co -operative Societies under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act hereinafter called the Act for quashing the resolution Ex. 3. The Assistant Registrar by his order dated 15 -10 -74 accepted the petitioners' application and quashed the resolution dated 30th of June, 1974. In the mean time a complaint was also lodged by the petitioner Ramkumar to the Collector Nagaur that Mohan Lal the respondent No. 4 who was the Secretary of the society had mis -appropriated the societies' fund and therefore inquiry should be made in respect of the misappropriated funds of the society. The Collector ordered for the inquiry regarding the misappropriated funds which was pending at the time when the Assistant Registrar had passed his order dated 15th of October, 1974.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners as propounded in the writ petition is that Sayarmal Gandhi who happened to be the Assistant Registrar was an intimate friend of respondent No. 4 Mohanlal the Secretary of the Sahkari Samiti and was highly prejudiced against the petitioners and therefore the order Ex. 8 passed by him was without jurisdiction. The further case of the petitioners is that the Assistant Registrar did not comply with the order of the Registrar dated 3rd of February, 1975 in as much as he did not comply with the direction of the Registrar who had observed that while passing the order the Assistant Registrar should take note of the directions made by the Collector in an inquiry initiated on the complaint of the petitioner Ramkumar. It has also been alleged by the petitioners that they were not allowed adequate opportunity to produce evidence in the matter and therefore the impugned orders are bad in law. It has also been alleged in the petition that the order Ex. 9 upholding the orders of the Assistant Registrar being not a speaking order cannot be sustained in law. Lastly it has been alleged that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as no notice was given to the petitioners as required under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules.