2017 Supreme(SC) 361

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
VIPULBHAI MANSINGBHAI CHAUDHARY – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANROTHER – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14678 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION(C) No.824/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13784/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1881/2016
Decided On : 17-04-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
High Court or Supreme Court should not undertake to re-appreciate the evidence to determine correctness or otherwise of conclusions of the Registrar.
If an order is passed in exercise of statutory power in breach of natural justice, the power can once again be exercised by complying with principles of natural justice.
Action taken by Registrar against a member u/s 76B ia not amenable to challenge being not u/s 81 unless it is mala fide.
Action u/s 76B(1) may be taken without taking any action u/s 76B(2), but action u/s 76B(2) cannot be taken unless action has been taken u/s 76B(1).
Law at the relevant time will prevail unless the amendment is made retrospective.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 and 136 – Conclusions drawn by Registrar on the basis of the evidence before it – High Court or Supreme Court should not undertake to re-appreciate the evidence to determine correctness or otherwise of conclusions of the Registrar – High Court rightly declined to interfere with those findings. (Para 29)

       (b) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 14 and section 14, Gujarat General Clauses Act – Statutory power could “be exercised from time to time as occasion requires” – Order passed in exercise of statutory power in breach of natural justice – Power can once again be exercised by complying with principles of natural justice. (Para 35)

       (1978) 3 SCC 113 – Relied upon

       AIR 1961 AP 324 – Cited with approval

       (c) Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Sections 76B and 81 – Dereliction of duty by committee and individual members of the committee – Action taken by Registrar against a member u/s 76B – Not amenable to challenge being not u/s 81 – Can be challenged only on ground of mala fide, pleaded and proved. (Para 43, 44)

       (d) Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Section 76B(2) – Exercise of power under – Only against and officer already removed u/s 76B(1) – Facts for action under both sections 76B(1) and (2) would be the same – Action u/s 76B(1) may be taken without taking any action u/s 76B(2), but action u/s 76B(2) cannot be taken unless action has been taken u/s 76B(1) – Facts may require action under both provisions, that is, removal and disqualification of a member at the same time – Instantly removal of Chaudhary approved by State Government and High Court – After removal, facts for show cause notice for disqualification also would be the same – Issue of second show cause notice was not necessary – Only mention of removal of Chaudhary was enough being precondition for action u/s 76B(2) – No infirmity in show cause notice II or action u/s 76B(2). (Para 47, 48, 49, 50)

       (e) Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Section 76B(2) – Section 76B(2) at the relevant time provided for disqualification for four years – Amendment providing for disqualification for six years – Amendment not retrospective – Disqualification of Chaudhary for six years not sustainable. (Para 54)

       Facts of the case:

       Chaudhary was elected as the Chairman of the Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. for a period of three years commencing from 2.5.2011 to 1.5.2014. However, he continued to hold the office beyond the period of three years by virtue of the operation of Section 74C(2) of the Act.

       During the continuance of Chaudhary in the office, a show-cause notice was issued on 12.1.2015 by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies purporting to be one issued under Section 76B(1) & (2) calling upon Chaudhary to show cause why he should not be removed from the office for various reasons mentioned therein.

       Chaudhary challenged the said show-cause notice by way of a writ petition. It was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court as pre-mature. The dismissal was confirmed by a Division Bench. Supreme court directed status quo.

       The Registrar passed a final order by which Chaudhary was removed from the office and also disqualified for a period of three years from holding “any office in any Sahakari Mandal to participate in any election for a period of three years”.

       Chaudhary filed a statutory revision before the State Government which was rejected.

       Writ Petition thereaginst was dismissed but the order insofar as it pertained to the disqualification of Chaudhary for a future period of three years was set aside.

       Chaudhary preferred Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) which was dismissed.

       High Court held that the Show-Cause Notice-II is untenable for the reason that when the High Court had set aside the Show-Cause Notice-I, it did not record that the Registrar is permitted to issue a fresh show-cause notice proposing action under Section 76B(2).

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment except that disqualification should be for four years.

       Result: Appeal and writ petition disdmissed.