Honble JHA, CJ.–This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.12.1995 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.5492/1995, for quashing the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bundi dated 9.3.1993 rescinding the resolution of the Bundi Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) as well as the appellate order of the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Kota dated 3.11.1995 dismissing the appeal of the appellant preferred against the said order of the Assistant Registrar.

(2). Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 7.8.1982 the appellant was appointed on a class IV post on temporary basis under resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank dated 6.8.1982. By order dated 10.8.1982 the appellant was directed to perform the duties of clerk keeping in view his academic qualification of secondary pass and experience. On 18.11.1986 he was appointed as cashier -cum- clerk in the scale of Rs.400-1343. It is stated that the said appointment was pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 18.11.1986. Though the appointment was supposed to be for a period of three months, it was continued from time to time. On 12.1.1990 the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bundi issued notice under Section 32 to the Bank to show cause why the resolution dated 6.6.1989 extending the appellants appointment as clerk-cumcashier be not rescinded. The proceeding was dropped on 2.5.1990. However another notice was issued on 23.3.1993 under Section 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1965 calling upon the bank to show cause why the resolution dated 18.11.1986 be not rescinded. By the impugned order, finally, the resolution dated 18.11.1986 was rescinded by the Assistant Registrar. As indicated above, the appellant preferred appeal before the Addtioinal Registrar (Appeals) which was dismissed by order dated 3.11.1995.

(3). Shri Bhanwar Bagri appearing for the appellant raised a short but pertinent point. He submitted that the impugned order was passed without issuing notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and therefore the order is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. He drew our attention to para 1(ga) of the reply in this appeal to buttress his point that the order had been passed after giving notice to the bank alone and no notice had been issued to the appellant.

(4). It may be mentioned here that the writ petition had been dismissed without issuing notice and therefore no reply was filed by the bank before the Single Judge. Reply has been filed in this appeal. The relevant part thereof referred to by the counsel runs as under :

"1(G). That under Section 32 of the Act notice is issued to the Co-operative Society whose resolution is sought to be rescinded and what effect such rescinded will have and who all would be effect are not required to be given notice under Section 32 of the Act. . . "

(5). The stand, strictly speaking, is in accord with the language of Section 32 of the Act which provides that where any resolution passed at the meeting of any co-operative society is in the opinion of the Registrar opposed to the objects of the society or is prejudicial to the interest of the Society, or is in excess of powers of the Society, he after giving the co-operative society an opportunity of being heard, may rescind the resolution in whole or in part specifying the reasons therefor.

(6). We are however unable to give a restricted meaning of the provision. The resolution may have been passed by the Co- operative Society - the Bank in the case in hand - but indisputably it is the appellant who stood to gain or lose. The resolution was in his favour, and if that is rescinded in exercise of power under Section 32, clearly, the person likely to be affected is the appellant and it would be against the basic rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document