IMPORTANT POINT
The impugned order must consider the submissions and address the charges against the party, and it should not rely on presumptive grounds. Fair treatment and adherence to constitutional rights are essential in such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The state is represented by Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned GP-22.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operatives Societies Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereas the petitioner no. 2 is the elected Chairman of the society, have invoked the prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated 13.01.2023 as contained in Memo No. 37 dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure -10) passed by the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Society Tribunal, Patna whereby the Bihar Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Bhagalpur has been ordered to be liquidated and dissolved under the supervision of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur Division.

3. The short facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that the Bihar Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Bhagalpur was incorporated on 30.05.2011 by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur Division in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The Society has been engaged in the business of credit and thrift as per its objectives and bye-laws. The authorized share capital of the Society is one hundred crores. The Society has no financial assistance of the Government nor the Government and its authorities have any control over the functioning of the Society, except supervision. Presently, the Society has 27098 members as on 31.03.20222 and have created funds by their own contribution, all members are shareholders of the Society.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Society while it was functioning in accordance with law, it received a statutory notice contained in Letter No. 558 dated 02.07.2018 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 in terms of Section 44(1) of the Act, directing the Society to submit its explanation within 90 days with regard to the charges enumerated, therein.

5. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Society submitted its explanation to the respondent no. 3 vide its Letter dated 29.09.2018 (Annexure – 4) controverting all the charges with its explanation. Thereafter, the Society did not receive any communication from the respondent no. 3, however, all on a sudden, the respondent no. 3 filed a petition dated 19.12.2019 before the Co-operative Tribunal seeking an order of liquidation of the Society under Section 44 of the Act. The aforenoted petition dated 19.12.2019 was assigned to the member of the Co-operative Tribunal by the Chairman of the Tribunal on the issue of admission fixing 10.05.2021 as the date of hearing. Accordingly, notices were issued fixing the next date of hearing on 04.10.2021. The Society filed its detailed reply to the petition dated 19.12.2019, filed by the respondent no. 3 as noted hereinabove, controverting all the charges, grounds mentioned in the application dated 19.12.2019. A rejoinder was also filed by the respondent no. 3 to the reply of the petitioners Society, however, it is the case of the petitioners that the facts pleaded in the reply was not rebutted by the respondent no. 3. The Society further filed reply to the rejoinder of the respondent no. 3 and, thereafter, again filed a supplementary reply with additional argument, the copies of which have been brought on record by way of Annexures 8 and 9.

6. The matter was finally heard on 06.01.2023 and the case was fixed for 13.01.2023 (Annexure – 10) for passing final order and accordingly, the order was passed on 13.01.2023 (Annexure - 10). However, the same was issued on 10.03.2023.

7. Learned senior counsel while assailing the impugned order as contained in Annexure – 10, first of all submits that from the records it would be evident that the case was admitted by a single member of the Bench of the Cooperative Tribunal but later on the matter was