Back
High Court Of Delhi
D.C.KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
A.K.AGGARWAL - Respondent
Civil Writ 2453 of 1986
Decided On : 02/17/1987
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF INDIA - WRIT JURISDICTION - AUTHORITY - SUSPENSION - BYELAWS - REGULATIONS - CONTROL - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1984 - ARTICLES 12, 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were employees of the respondent-federation, challenged the orders of suspension passed by the respondent-federation. The main questions of law which arose for consideration were whether the respondent-federation was an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so as to subject it to the writ jurisdiction of the Court and secondly, whether the Managing Director of the respondent-federation, who admittedly had passed orders of suspension, had the jurisdiction and the authority to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent-federation was an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution and was amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court further held that the Managing Director of the respondent-federation was competent to order the suspension of the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent-federation was an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so as to subject it to the writ jurisdiction of the Court? 2. Whether the Managing Director of the respondent-federation, who admittedly had passed orders of suspension, had the jurisdiction and the authority to do so?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In determining whether an entity is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or not, all facts and circumstances have to be taken together. One single factor may not by itself be enough to indicate conclusively as to whether an entity is a "state" or not. 2. The power to maintain discipline is clearly stipulated in Regulation 64 as being with the managing director. It is in the exercise of this power that the managing director can suspend a delinquent officer.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) (ORAL ).-THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Ncs. 2453186, 2213186 and 1608186, filed by Shri D. C. Kapoor, Shri N. C. Jam and Shri R. B. Singh respectively, whereby they have challenged the orders of suspension passed by National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Federation" ).
( 2 ) THE respondent-federation is a registered cooperative society which wan initially registered under the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. With the promulgation of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the respondent-federation was covered by the provision s of the said Act.
( 3 ) THE petitioners were working in the said federation. Shri D. C. Kapoor v/as the Chief Marketing Adviser, Shri N. C. Jain was the Assistant Manager, Grade I and Shri R. B. Singh was Regional Manager. By orders dated 6th May, 1986 issued by the. respondent-federation Shri DL C. , Kapoor and Shri R. B. Singh were placed under suspension. Shri N. C. Jain was placed under suspension by a separate order dated 30th June, 1986.
( 4 ) AS already noted above, the challenge in these petitions is to the aforesaid orders of suspension which have been issued by the respondent-federation.
( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the facts of each case separately, it will be proper to consider the common questions of law which have been argued at great length by counsels for the parties.
( 6 ) THE two main questions of law which arise for consideration are whether the respondent-federation is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so as to subject it to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and secondly, whether the Managing Director of the respondent-federation, who admittedly has passed orders of suspension, had the jurisdiction and the. authority to do so.
( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondents it was contended that the federtion was not a statutory body and nor was it controlled by the Central Government and it was an independent organisation and could not be regarded as being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The submission. of the learned counsel- for the respondents was that on a correct interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the byelaws it. will be evident that the respondent-federation has an independent existence of its own and the governmental control is not to such an extent as to bring it within the ambit of its being regarded as an authority . Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, contend that there is a deep and pervasive control of the Government over the functioning of the respondentfederation and the respondent-federation is an authority and therefore amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the said Act.
( 9 ) THE Act had been promulgated in order to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies with objectives not confined to one State and serving the interests of members in more than one State. The Act provides for registration of such Multi State Co-operative Societies and by Section 4 of the Act the Central Government is empowered to appoint a person to be the Central Registrer of the Co-operative Societies. Section 19 provides for those persons. who may be admitted as members of the Multi State Co-operative Society, The said Section 19 (1) reads as under :-
"19. (L) No person shall be admitted as member of a multi-State co-operative society except the following, namely,:- (a) an individual competent to contract under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act. 18,72 ; (b) any multi-State co-operative society or any cooperative society; (e) the Central Government : (d) a State Government ; (e) the National Co-operative Development Corpora
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
