SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Achutyanand Singh and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 238 of 1968, D/-4-5-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Chagla, Sr. Advocate (Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners; M/s. D. P. Singh, V. J. Francis, Narayan Netter and Suresh Prasad Sigh, Advocates, for Respondents.
Constitution of India, Art. 32 – Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 – Compulsory amalgamation of societies – Amalgamation of the Cane Growers Co-operative Societies into Multipurpose Co-operative Societies – Held relevant statutory provision is R: 39 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 made under S. 66 of the Act. This rule has already been set out. It is clear that so long as the appeal remains pending with the Registrar or the State Government, as the case may be, no order can made under sub-rule (2). It is not disputed before us that the petitioner society had appealed from the order of the Assistant Registrar dated November, 25,1967 to the Registrar and that on January 22, 1968 that appeal was pending. Indeed it is still pending awaiting disposal. In view of the fact that on January 22, 1968, when the order under R. 39 (2) was made by the Assistant Registrar, the appeal against the order dated November 25, 1967, was pending with the Registrar, the order dated January 22, 1968, must be held to be contrary to law and therefore void. Once this order is struck down the challenge to the order dated November 25, 1967 will have to be decided by the Registrar before whom the appeal from that order is pending - Writ petition allowed
Judgment
DUA, J.:- The petitioners in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution are Achutyanand Singh and the Kaithawalia Cane Growers Co-operative Society registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of Petitioner No. 2, the Co-operative Society. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass and are not disputed. We consider it unnecessary for our present purpose to refer to the earlier events including the correspondence between the Co-operative Department and the petitioners in the background of which the impugned order dated January 22, 1968 was made, because they have no material bearing on the question of the invalidity of the impugned order.
2. Ignoring therefore the earlier history of the controversy between the Cane Growers, Co-operative Societies and the Government Department of Co-operative Societies relating to the amalgamation of the Cane Growers Co-operative Societies into Multipurpose Co-operative Societies, we need only begin with the order dated November 25, 1967 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bettiah directing the petitioner society to take steps for amalgamation of the petitioner society with the other co-operative societies mentioned therein. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner on December 14, 1967, with the Registirar, Co-operative Societies (Bihar) at Patna, under R. 39 (4) of the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. While this appeal was pending, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed another order on January 22, 1968, by means of which he compulsorily amalgamated the petitioner Society with three other societies mentioned therein so as to form a new Multipurpose Co-operative Society. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition was presented in this Court on August 10, 1968, challenging the two orders of the Assistant Registrar. The impugned order dated January 22, 1968 reads as under:
"Chanpatia Community Development Block. Name of Societies to be amalgamated.:
1. Bankat Kaithwalia M. P. C. S.
2. Bankat C. G. C. S.
3. Kaithwalia C. G. C. S.
4. Shambhnapur C. G. C. S.
Dated 22-1-1968
Whereas the above noted societies which have been functioning independently are extremely weak, both structurally and financially, to attain a viable status so as to deliver the goods expected from them until and unless they are amalgamated to form a new society and whereas the managing committee of the above noted societies have failed to convene a meeting in compliance to my order No. 49A dated 25-11-67 issued under Section 39 (1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, while the Society/Societies mentioned against serial.. . . above convened a meeting of share-holders and creditors thereof which took no decision which is not in the interest of these societies and whereas six weeks have expired from the date of my orders referred to above, I, after satisfying myself that the interest of the creditors have been adequately safeguarded direct under Sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 39 of the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 that the aforesaid societies should be amalgamated into a new society, namely, Bankat Kaithwalia M. P. C. S. Society. and I hereby register the new society and the bye-laws thereof with effect from 22-1-68.
It is further ordered that the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated societies shall vest in the new society and the registration of the amalgamating societies shall stand cancelled."
3. Shri Chagla raised three contentions in this Court. According to the first contention the Assistant Registrar who passed the impugned orders was not competent to do so because the power to make such orders was not delegated to him under the law. According to the second contention during the pendency of the petitioner s appeal with the Registrar no further order could be passed by the Assistant Registra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.