A.G.OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in WP(C) No. 1603 of 2003 on the file of this Court are appellants in this appeal.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that power had been exercised by a Secretary to the Government who was not an authority under the Cooperative Societies Act and that the power to suspend the election, to appoint a special officer and to direct an inquiry has been drawn from Section 65 -A of the Act, which had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Patna High Court when the State of Jharkhand was not born and in view of that, the learned Single Judge should have straightaway quashed both Annexures 7 and 9 on the ground that the said orders lacked jurisdiction. Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in observing that the power of the Government to act, could be found in Rule 27(4) of the Rules of Executive Business. Counsel contended that the Co -operative Societies Act, was a self contained Code, and it contained provisions to meet the contingencies that arise out of the alleged complaint in this case and the Act did not confer any over riding authority or power on the State Government or the Secretary to the Government and, therefore, it should be held that the order impugned were orders passed without authority. Counsel further contended that an election had been held, though as permitted by way of an interim order passed in the writ petition, but now that an election has been held and the Managing Committee has been elected, it was not just and proper to prevent the Managing Committee from taking charge of the affairs of the Society and running it and even if this Court were to hold that an inquiry was warranted on the complaint made by some disgruntled members of the Society that inquiry to be conducted cannot stand in the way of the newly elected office bearers being put in charge of the affairs of the Society. Counsel made it clear on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have no objection to the inquiry being conducted by the appropriate authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, which, according to the counsel, was the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and in that situation, this Court ought to allow the appeal and allow the newly elected Managing Committee to take charge of the affairs of the society. Counsel briefly touching upon the merits of the controversy, also submitted that the present complaint was nothing new, had been raised even in the year 1983, had been buried even then and there was no substance in the charge now made against the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Society. He stated that in any event the newly elected Managing Committee cannot be held responsible for any of those deeds or misdeeds.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the intervener submitted that the alleged amendment of the byelaws expanding the membership of the Society was not validly passed and, in any event, it was never approved by the competent authority and in the circumstances, it was imperative that there should be an inquiry into the affairs of the Society and the management should not be given back to the newly elected Managing Committee. There was clear misutilisation of land by the Society and misapplication of funds and an inquiry was imperative. The intervener supported the arguments of the learned Advocate General.