SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Annexure P5) of the Registrar, Rajasthan Co -operative Societies, Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) dated March 15, 1988 by which the Executive Committee of the Krya Vikray Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road (Sirohi) (here in after referred to as 'the Abu Road K.V.S Samiti') has been removed and the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Sirohi has been appointed as its Administrator, for issuing direction that the petitioner continues to respresent the said Samiti in the Sirohi Central Co operative Bank, Sirohi and also continues to be its Chairman and for declaration that the provisions of Section 139, Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 110, Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Rules, 1966 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules') are ultra vires the Constitution of India. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE petitioner is a member of the Abu Road KVS Samiti. He was elected as its Chairman on 13 -1 -1985. He was also elected as the Chairman of the Sirohi Central Co -operative Bank, Sirohi on 2 -8 -1987. As per bye law No. 11(7) of the Bye Laws of the Abu Road RVS Samiti, the Executive Committee is entitled to continue to function even after the expiry of its term of three years till the members of the New Committee are elected. It passed a resolution on May 21, 1987 that the petitioner would continue to represent the Samiti in the Sirohi Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Sirohi. The Joint Registrar also allowed him to continue to represent the Abu Road KVS Samiti in the Sirohi Central Co -Operative Bank till the election of the Board of Directors of the KVS Samiti is held. In pursuance of the order of the State Government, the Registrar, dissolved the Executive Committee of the Abu Road KVS Samiti by his order, Annexure P 5 dated March 15, 1988 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Ex. P 5 has been passed without complying with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act and Rule 38 of the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to continue in the office till another Committee was constituted, the election is not being held due to the negligence of the State Government, the order Ex.P 5 has been passed mechanically by the Registrar and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to passing it. He also contended that as a result of the impugned order, the petitioner stands debarred from contesting the election in future under Section 34 of the Act. He lastly contended that the provisions of Section 139 of the Act and Rule 110 of the Rules are ultra -vires the Constitution of India as they confer uncontrolled and uncanalised powers in the hands of the Government.