JUDGMENT- A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

The present petition challenges the order passed by the Divisional Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Milk) Amravati dated 25th April, 2000, whereby it is declared that the duly elected committee consisting of members who have been elected in the meeting which was held under the Chairmanship of Abdul Jalil Sk. Ahmed, vide Resolution No. 4 was approved and that the petitioner was not duly elected President of the society. The said order has been passed pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the authority dated 28th March 2000. By the said show cause notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against the society with regard to the irregularities in the society. No other particulars have been mentioned in the said notice dated 28th March, 2000. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said notice the petitioner, by letter dated 18th April, 2000, not only responded but also placed certain documents on record.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that the Divisional Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Milk) Amravati, instead of confining the enquiry with regard to financial irregularities of the society, clearly exceeded the jurisdiction in declaring that some other persons have been duly elected as members of the committee. According to the petitioner, the said authority had no jurisdiction to do so, for there was no provision under the Act which would empower the authority to issue such a declaration.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contends that the purport of section 83 of the Act was wide enough to enable the respondent No. 3 to hold an inquiry with regard to the legality of constitution of the society which would include the issue as to who are duly elected members of the committee. Even accepting that such agreement is tenable, even then it was necessary for the Authority to give a specific notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to address his explanation with regard to the said issue. This, admittedly, has not been done in the present case. On the other hand, on the basis of a vague letter the respondent No. 2 has usurped the powers and purported to have exercised the authority under section 83 of the Act to pass the impugned order. This is totally unsustainable and is opposed to the basic principles of natural justice. The respondent No. 2 has declared some other persons as being duly elected, which has serious civil consequence with reference to the election of the petitioner as a President and other members elected along with him. It was, therefore, essential that a specific notice was given, framing clear charge that the proposed inquiry was with regard to the issue as to whether the petitioner or the members elected in the meeting under the Chairmanship of Abdul Jalil Sk. Ahmed is the duly elected body. Even assuming that the respondent No. 2 had authority to go into this question; however, for want of specific notice, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that this petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of revision under section 154 of the Act as well as the dispute before the Cooperative Court under section 91 of the Act. In my view this submission clearly overlooks that the impugned order is passed without authority of law and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Therefore, it would be wholly inappropriate to drive the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy, as contended by the respondent No. 1.

5. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed on 25th April, 2000 deserves to be set aside. It is further made clear that it would be open to the respondent No. 2 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, provided that a fair opportunity is offered to the petitioner to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document