Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO
C.V.Subrahmanyam Sastry - Appellant
Versus
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, State OF A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 11-11-63
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - SUPERSESSION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS - POWER OF REGISTRAR - WHETHER QUASI-JUDICIAL - DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The Ongole Co-operative Bank Ltd. was superseded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 43 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. The Board of Directors challenged the order of supersession, contending that the Registrar acted in excess of his jurisdiction and that the order was illegal, unjust, and suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Registrar, while exercising the powers vested in him under Section 43 of the Act, has a duty to act judicially. However, the ultimate formation of opinion by the Registrar under Section 43 and collection of material preceding may be acts of purely an administrative or executive nature, not ordinarily subjected to judicial review.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has a duty to act judicially while exercising the powers vested in him under Section 43 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932? 2. Whether the order of supersession of the Board of Directors was passed in excess of jurisdiction or suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Registrar has a duty to act judicially while exercising the powers vested in him under Section 43 of the Act. This is because: a) Before forming a final opinion, the Registrar must give an opportunity to the Committee to state its objections. b) The decision affects the legal status of the members of the Board. c) The Registrar is under a statutory obligation to consult the Bank to which the society is affiliated. 2. The Court held that the order of supersession was not passed in excess of jurisdiction or suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The Registrar had sufficient material to form the opinion that the society was not functioning properly and acted within his legal authority.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the order of supersession of the Board of Directors was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE Ongole Co-operative Bank Ltd. , is one of the oldest Banks in the Guntur District working under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter called the Act. It seems to have a membership of about 900 with a working capital of about 61/2 lakhs. The Bank has also a paid Secretary who is of the grade of the Co-operative Sub Register. The financing Bank for the said Co-operative Bank is the Guntur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. , Tenali. According to the bye-laws of the Bank the term of the office bearers is three years. The present Board of Directors were elected and started functioning from 1-2-1960.
( 2 ) IT is also alleged that due to some political pressures the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies issued a notice under Section 43 (1) and (3) of the Act on 6-2-1963, on the ground that the Bank is not working satisfactory and is also mismanaged. The said notice was served on the President of the Bank on 12-12-1963 calling on the Board of Directors to submit their explanation on or before 25-2-1963. The Board of Directors thereafter submitted their explanation. The Registrar through his order dated 25-6-1963 superseded the Board. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution it is this order of supersession of the Board of Directors which is challenged.
( 3 ) IT is alleged that the order of supersession is illegal, unjust and suffers from an error apparent on the fact of the record. There was no data available under Section 38 of the Act to warrant supersession under Section 43. It is only when the working of the Bank was found unsatisfactory financially that the supersession order can be made. There were no irregularities committed by the Bank to warrant the supersession. The order of the Registrar therefore is without jurisdiction.
( 4 ) THE respondents in their counter denied the allegation that the order of supersession was made under any political or other influence. As the Registrar was satisfied that the working of the Bank is not proper, the Board of Directors were superseded. There was enough material to warrant the conclusion to which the Registrar had reached. There were irregularities of grave nature committed by the Board of Directors. There is no defect of jurisdiction or any error apparent on the face of the record, which would call for the interference by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
( 5 ) THE principal contention of Mr. M. B. Rama Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the order is of a quasi-judicial nature and that therefore this Court is competent to interfere when it is satisfied that the Registrar acted in violation of Section 43 of the Act. It is however urged on behalf of the respondents that the Registrar while exercising the powers vested in him under Section 43 of the Act neither acts judicially nor is he under any duty to act judicially. It is purely an administrative order and therefore this Court is not entitled to interfere. In order to appreciate these contention it is necessary to read Section 43 of the Act, which in so far as it is relevant for my purpose reads as follows : "section 43 (1 ). If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the Committee of any register Society is not functioning properly, he may, after giving an opportunity to the Committee to state its objections. If any, by order in writing, dissolve the Committee and appoint a suitable person or persons to manage the affairs of the Society for a specified period not exceeding two years. The period specified in such order may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extend from time to time provided that such order shall not remain in force for more than four years in the aggregate. (2) to (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) Before taking any action under sub-section (1) in respect of a financing Bank or in respect of a society indebted to a financing bank, the Registrar sha
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.