IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the powers under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, are inalienable and cannot be delegated to other authorities, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the Registrar's authority in matters concerning the governance of cooperative societies.

ORDER :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been preferred against judgment and order dated 16.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed holding the same to be premature.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner preferred a writ petition and challenged the notice dated 30.04.2024 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3) under Section 30(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’).

3. The petitioner, who is a Chairman of Jalore-Sirohi District Dugdh Utpadak Cooperative Union Limited, Raniwada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) challenged the notice so issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on various grounds, out of which, the ground which was pressed before the learned Single Judge was that the action of the Registrar/respondents is affecting fundamental rights of the Society to carry on the trade.

4. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents, inter-alia, with an assertion that the notice has rightly been issued as there is a stalement in the working of the Society because number of the members has reduced to less than 50%, which is minimum corum required for adopting any resolution. It was the respondent’s stand that since number of the members has become less than the requisite number hence the functioning of the Society has become impossible and thus, proceedings under Section 30 (1)(b) of the Act of 2001 were necessary to initiate.

5. After hearing the rival parties, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the same was premature and the petitioner (appellant herein) was first required to file his response in pursuance of the notice dated 30.04.2024 issued by the Registrar.

6. Learned Single Judge observed that the facts and the assertions, which the petitioner was asserting before the High Court were required to be placed before the respondent No.3, including the contention that the Society is having requisite number of members forming the corum.

7. Mr Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating the submissions made before the learned Single Judge raised an additional ground that the Registrar of the Society – respondent No.3 does not have the power or jurisdiction to issue the subject notice, as the powers to invoke Section 30(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 have been conferred upon the Managing Director of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation (hereinafter referred to as ‘MDRCDF’) by way of notification dated 30.06.2014 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2001.

8. Since this issue was neither addressed before the learned Single Judge nor has been dealt with, Mr. Patel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State opposed such submission of learned counsel for the appellant, but when the Court found that this contention has been raised as a ground in the memo of writ petition and observed that it was fundamental question of jurisdiction - a neat question of law, he readily advanced arguments on the issue.

9. We are in agreement with the observation of learned Single Judge that the writ petition is premature as number of members has reduced to less than half of the members or not, is a question of fact to be considered and determined by the authority competent under Section 30 (1)(b) of the Act of 2001 and we are in agreement on this issue. Hence, we are confining ourselves to dilate upon the question of jurisdiction of the Registrar.

10. Adverting to the submissions of Mr. Sandhu in relation to power of the Registrar, Cooperative Society to exercise powers under Section 30 (1)(b) of the Act of 2001, it was argued by Mr. Sandhu that notification dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure.7) issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2001 confers