Back
2004 Supreme(Guj) 774
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.PATEL
HARIJAN JOITARAM DANABHAI - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR - Respondent
S.C.A.871 of 2004
Decided On : 12/18/2004
Headnote:
Gujarat Coop. Societies Act - Section 81 – Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Petitioners in Special Civil Application as for parties who are joined as opponents in capacity as original petitioners for applicants for State authorities – Petition case are that members of Managing Committee of have preferred present petition - It is case some of petitioners have neither filed affidavit nor have signed nor they have not preferred this petition and present petition is filed at instance of petitioner only submitted that statement made in applications that petitioner have not signed is not correct and affidavits have been filed to controvert said statement - Even if it is considered that all petitioners have filed present petition then also for reasons recorded hereinafter same would not assume much importance as to whether some of petitioners have approached this court by preferring this petition or not and therefore said aspect is not required to be dealt with in detail at this stage - It appears that District Registrar issued show cause notice – Held, Petitioner and submissions made in petition read in comparison to statement made in applications preferred by other members of Managing Committee itself create doubt for petitioner would have considered matter further for examining said aspects but find that in view of reasons recorded if challenge made by petitioner on merits cannot be sustained against impugned order no useful purpose would be served in examining other aspects for undertaking inquiry against persons who have made statement before this court may be as petitioners or may be as applicants in respective civil applications as case may be - Further by order of remand made by Registrar will have an opportunity to examine not only questions for exercise of power Act but Dist Registrar if it is so desired by both parties can also examine genuineness of stand on behalf of managing committee and therefore allegations and counter allegations which are made in this petition by petitioner which are made by applicants in respective applications may be raised by them before Dist Registrar while putting forward their case in response to proceedings Act - Therefore as order of remand which is made by Registrar in his impugned order even otherwise also cannot be said to be seriously prejudicial to interest of members of managing committee who have challenged order – Order Accordingly (Para 15)
( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Naik for the original petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 871/04 as well as for the parties who are joined as opponents in capacity as original petitioners, Mr. Raval for the applicants of CA Nos 643 to 645/04 and Mr. Naik for the applicants in CA No. 1303/04 and Mr Desai, Ld. AGP for the State authorities. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties main special civil application is taken up for final hearing while hearing the civil applications.
( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the members of the Managing Committee of Titoda Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the society") have preferred the present petition. It is the case of Mr. Raval that some of the petitioners have neither filed affidavit nor have signed the vakalatnama nor they have not preferred this petition and the present petition is filed at the instance of petitioner Nos 1 and 5 only. Mr. Naik submitted that the statement made in the applications that the petitioner Nos 2,3 and 4 have not signed the vakalatnama is not correct and the affidavits have been filed to controvert the said statement. Even if it is considered that all the petitioners have filed the present petition, then also for the reasons recorded hereinafter same would not assume much importance as to whether some of the petitioners have approached this court by preferring this petition or not and therefore said aspect is not required to be dealt with in detail at this stage. It appears that the District Registrar issued show cause notice under section 81 of the Gujarat Coop. Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for superseding the Managing committee of the society. It is the case of the petitioners as stated in the petition that the show cause notice was served to all the members of the Managing Committee and the five members of the Managing Committee who have preferred this petition submitted reply before the District Registrar contending that they have no objection for supersession and for appointment of the administrator whereas there are counter stands taken in the application that the petitioner Nos 2,3 and 4 were not at all aware of the show cause notice and the signatures of the petitioner Nos 2,3 and 4 are manoeuvered by petitioner Nos 1 and 5. The District Registrar ultimately passed the order on 15. 1. 2004 whereby the managing committee is superceded and the appointment of the administrator is made and the administrator appointed is Banaskantha Dist. Coop. Milk Manufacturing Union Ltd, which is a federal body in the district so far as Milk Producers Coop. Societies are concerned. It appears that the Secretary of the society preferred appeal against the order passed by the Dist. Registrar before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) being Appeal No. 11/4. The appeal has been ultimately allowed as per the order, dated 21. 1. 2004 whereby the Addl. Registrar found that the proper procedure is not followed and it is not properly examined by the District Registrar that who are the members of the managing committee, and whether notices are genuinely served to all such persons or not. The Additional Registrar also found that further relevant aspects for exercise of powers under section 81 of the Act are not properly examined by the Dist. Registrar and ultimately the matter is remanded for reconsideration and the interim order has been passed whereby the charge is directed to be handed over to the Managing Committee and the management is to be continued but no policy decision is to be taken. The said order of the Additional Registrar is challenged in the present petition by the petitioners.
( 3 ) IT appears that on 23. 1. 2004 this court (K. M. Mehta,j) has passed the following order:"heard Mr. K. S. Jhaveri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule and notice as to interim relief returnable on 9. 2. 2004. Ad interim relief in terms of paragraph no. 6 (B) is granted till then. DS is permitted. "thereafte
