Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ITANAGAR BENCH)
P.K. Musahary, J.
James Techi Tara and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 21.08.2008
The legality of the show-cause notice, the authority to submit the show-cause reply, and the appointment of the Administrator under Section 79(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1978.
Headnote:
Super Session - Cooperative Society - Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1978, Section 79(1) - The court discussed the legality of the impugned order of super session issued under Section 79(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1978. It highlighted the insufficiency of the show-cause notice served to the managing director and the lack of authorization for the show-cause reply, concluding that the impugned order of super session was not legally valid or sustainable under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, elected members of a cooperative society, challenged the order of super session issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, superseding the elected Board of Directors and appointing an Administrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the show-cause notice served to the managing director and the subsequent order of super session to be legally invalid due to insufficiency and lack of authorization for the show-cause reply.
Issues: Legality of the show-cause notice and order of super session, authority to submit show-cause reply, and the appointment of the Administrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The show-cause notice served to the managing director was insufficient to inform the Chairman or the other elected members of the Board of Directors about the allegations, and the show-cause reply submitted without authorization was not equivalent to the reply to be submitted by the Chairman or the Board of Directors.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the Government within a week, and directed the Government to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay and dispose of the same within 45 days. The court's observations were not to influence the appellate authority, and the decision on allowing the Administrator to continue was left with the Government.
P.K. Musahary, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents and also Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. This application under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun superseding the elected and constituted Board of Directors of the Management Body of the Arunachal Pradesh Consumer Co-operative Federation Limited, Naharlagun and appointing the respondent No. 4, Shri R.D. Thungon, Jt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies as Administrator.
3. The petitioners are elected members of the Arunachal Pradesh Consumer Co-operative Federation Ltd. ('the Society') who are elected for a terms of three years from 10.6.2006 to 10.5.2009 and they have been discharging their duties as elected representatives of the Society. The respondent-Registrar of the Co-operative Societies issued a show-cause notice vide letter No. COOP(GEN) 5/2001-Vol-1 dated 18th December, 2007 addressed to the managing director of the Society asking him to submit explanation/reply to the allegations leveled against him for mismanagement and mis-utilization of funds and other irregularities including failure to pay salary to the staff of the Society.
4. In the said show-cause notice issued under Section 79(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1978, it is stated that the notice is intended to supersede the management under the present Board of Directors ('BODs') of the Federation and affording the managing director with the opportunity of stating his objections, if any within 30 days from the date of issue of such notice.
5. In reply to the said show-cause notice, the managing director of the Society submitted the response vide letter No. ARUNFED/BOD/2007 dated 16th January, 2008 addressed to the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The respondent-Registrar on receipt of the said reply and finding the same unsatisfactory, issued the impugned order of super session vide No. COOP (GEN) 5/2001-Vol-1, dated 18th January, 2008 in purported exercise of powers under Section 79(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1978 ('the Act').
6. Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of super session is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the show-cause notice was issued to the managing director of the Society who is not an elected member of the BODs of the Society and no notice was served on the Chairman of the Society or any individual member of the BODs, although the allegation of mismanagement and mis-utilization of the funds of the Society have been made against the BODs. Moreover, the managing director against whom the show-cause notice was served did not place the matter before the Chairman or the BODs of the Society for consideration and taking any decision with regard to the allegations made against the BODs and reply to be submitted to the respondent-Registrar. Further more, Mr. Son submits that before filing the show-cause reply, the managing director did not take the due approval from the BODs nor was he authorized by the BODs to submit show-cause reply on behalf of the BODs. In the eye of law, according to Mr. Son, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Society is a legal entity and show-cause notice should have been served upon the Chairman or in the name of BODs and it is only the Chairman or the BODs who are the legal authorities to submit the show-cause reply to the respondent-Registrar. The show-cause notice as issued by the Registrar to the managing director of the Society is not at all contemplated under the provision of law and as such, such notice issued in the name of managing director and the reply so submitted by the managing director and the order of s
