Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Sarkari Padadhikari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Jharkhand - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3540 of 2010
Decided On : 04-04-2018
Prakash Chandra, Adv., Shadab Bin Haque, Adv., R.S. Mazumdar, Adv., Pratik Sen, Adv.
Headnote:
Co-operative Societies - Dispute Resolution - Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, Section 48 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, which provides for the resolution of disputes related to the business of a registered society. The court emphasized that the dispute must pertain to the conduct of the society's business among its members, managing committee, or other registered societies, and should be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. The court also highlighted the importance of providing reasons in orders and the duty of the appellate authority to record brief facts, contentions, and findings. The court cited the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P to support the necessity of giving reasons in statutory appeals. Additionally, the court emphasized the powers of the Administrator under Section 41(3) of the Act, which grants the Administrator the same powers as the managing committee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Samiti, a co-operative society, was aggrieved by the setting aside of an order related to the allotment of land. The dispute arose from the allotment of a plot to respondent No. 6, which was challenged by another allottee. The Assistant Registrar held the allotment illegal, but the appellate authority's order lacked reasons. The revisional authority permitted the parties to approach the civil court, leading to the writ petition by the petitioner-Samiti.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute did not fall under Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, and emphasized the lack of reasons in the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the appellate authority. The court also upheld the powers of the Administrator under Section 41(3) of the Act, affirming the revisional order and dismissing the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, the validity of the allotment of land, the lack of reasons in the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the appellate authority, and the powers of the Administrator under Section 41(3) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 48 of the Act, the necessity of providing reasons in orders, and the powers of the Administrator under Section 41(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the revisional order and emphasizing the need for disputes to fall within the scope of Section 48 of the Act, the requirement of reasons in orders, and the powers of the Administrator.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner-Samiti is aggrieved of order dated 23.03.2010 passed in Revision Case No. 23 of 2007, whereby order dated 27.09.2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has been set aside.
2. Briefly stated, Sarkari Padadhikari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Bokaro is a society registered under Bihar/Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. The petitioner-Samiti was allotted 5 acres of land for the benefit of its members; a list of 51 registered members was contained in letter dated 21.02.1986. In a special general meeting of the society held on 22.03.1986 it was resolved that the members shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- on or before 30.04.1986 whereupon they shall be considered for allotment of residential plots for them. Out of 5 acres land allotted by the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), 40 members were allotted plots on deposit of the requisite amount. It is pleaded that a map was signed by 3 members of the managing committee on 21.07.1988; in this map area adjacent to plot No. 36 was shown as vacant land. The respondent No. 6 who was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, CISF, Bokaro was allotted plot No. 47 by the Administrator, who was appointed on 01.02.1991 on supercession of the society, and this allotment was ratified by the society on 23.08.2000. A complaint was filed by one J.P. Shrivastav, allottee of plot No. 36 in the Cooperative Colony, Bokaro alleging illegal allotment of plot No. 47 to respondent No. 6. By an order dated 26.09.2000, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies held allotment of plot to respondent No. 6 illegal. Against this order the respondent No. 6 preferred Award Appeal Case No. 01 of 2001. The appellate authority holding that allotment of a plot from the vacant land to respondent No. 6, adjacent to plot No. 36 which was allotted to the complainant J. P. Srivastava was illegal, by an order dated 27.09.2006 dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 6. The revisional authority, however, on consideration of the materials on record finding serious dispute on facts, setaside the appellate order and permitted the parties to approach the civil court/competent court. Aggrieved, the petitioner-Samiti has preferred this writ petition.
3. Section 48 of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 provides that if any dispute touching the business of the registered society falls under clauses (a) to (e), such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar. Explanation 1 to section 48 clarifies that question whether a person is or was a member of a registered society or not shall be a dispute within the meaning of sub-section (1) to section 48. The respondent No. 6 has pleaded that the allottee-J. P. Shrivastav was encroaching upon his land and that was the reason he made a frivolous complaint before the Assistant Registrar which was registered as Case No. 01 of 2000. The expression "business" of a registered society occurring in section 48 means conduct of business of a registered society. It is only when there is dispute on conduct of business of the society amongst the members, past or present, or between society or its managing committee, or between the society and other registered society, or between the financing bank authorised under provision of sub-section (1) of section 16 and the person who is not a member of registered society, the dispute under section 48 shall be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. Interestingly, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chas respondent No. 2 has filed counter-affidavit stating that; "the writ application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and as such liable to be dismissed in limine by this Court."
4. Prima facie, the grievance raised by the complainant J. P. Shrivastav does not constitute a dispute under section 48. Besides the above, order dated 26.09.2000 passed on the complaint of J.P. Shrivastav does not reflect the stand of respondent No. 6.
