Back
1976 Supreme(P&H) 130
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gurnam Singh, J.
Uksi Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Uksi
Versus
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Package Programme, Ludhiana
Civil Writ No. 3940 of 1976,
Decided On : OCTOBER 26, 1976
An order of removal of a Managing Committee under section 27 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act must be a speaking order and must contain full details of the facts and reasons for removal.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - REMOVAL OF MANAGING COMMITTEE - SECTION 27 OF THE PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - ORDER OF REMOVAL MUST BE A SPEAKING ORDER AND MUST CONTAIN FULL DETAILS OF THE FACTS AND REASONS FOR REMOVAL - ORDER PASSED WITHOUT GIVING REASONS IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The Uksi Co-operative Agricultural Service Society challenged the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, removing its Managing Committee under section 27 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. The Society contended that the order was not a speaking order, was passed without application of mind, and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of removal was not a speaking order as it did not contain any details of the defaults made by the Society or of the negligent acts committed by it. The court also held that the Assistant Registrar did not say anything in his order as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the Society was not functioning properly.
Issues: Whether the order of removal of the Managing Committee was a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a quasi-judicial decision must be supported by reasons so that it is shown that the Registrar has applied his mind. If that is not done, the Appellate Authority will not be able to know as to how he came to the decision under appeal before it.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of removal of the Managing Committee and accepted the writ petition.
Gurnam Singh, J.
1. The Uksi Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Uksi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the society) through its Cashier Sh. Malkiat Singh and Sh. Malkiat Singh Cashier of the Society, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.6.1976 vide which the Managing Committee of the Society, has been removed under section 27 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds that the order, copy annexure P. 3 is not a speaking order that the same has been passed without application of mind that it is without jurisdiction, that it was passed mechanically, blindly relying on the ex-parte report of the Inspector, Co-operative Societies which was never brought to the notice of the Society, that the Society was not given an opportunity to meet the comments given by the Inspector, that no show cause notice was served upon the members of the Managing Committee individually, that no advice of the Board of Directors of the Bank was sought, that the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies was not competent to exercise jurisdiction under section 27 of the Act, that the charges were wholly vague and that the Managing Committee was functioning rightly. The Assistant Registrar respondent No. 1, has not appeared in spite of service.
2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, P.P. Ludhiana, pointed out the following shortcomings regarding the work of the Society as reported by the Sub-Inspector and the Inspector Co-operative Societies who were incharge of this Society also :-
(1) That the Society is defaulter of the Central Bank since 30.6.1972 and no work is being carried out with regard to the recovery from the members. Also the defaulters cases of members are not being prepared.
(2) A large amount of cash in hand has been kept and thus the funds of the society are being misused. Regarding this, the Sub-Inspector and the Inspector have told the Committee a number of times because the Committee has not passed a resolution regarding the limit of the cash in hand with the Cashier.
(3) The Sub-Inspector has told the Secretary and the Committee a number of times orally as well as in writing that the loan and subsidy for the construction of godown, has been sanctioned since long and the steps should be taken for the construction of the same. The Secretary has not applied his mind to this.
(4) On 18.7.1974 and 29.7.1975, the Sub-Inspector got recorded a resolution in the Proceedings Book that steps should be taken against the defaulter-members for recovery and the notice cards in the names of such members be prepared with regard to the arbitration references and should be sent by registered post but no notice has been sent to any such members. From this it is proved that the society is not willing to proceed against the defaulter-members because some of their family members are defaulters.
(5) In view of the above, the Managing Committee has failed to discharge its duties in accordance with the bye-laws.
3. The Society, in its reply copy annexure P. 2 stated that it was not defaulter of Central Bank since 30.6.1972, that only the loan obtained for Rabi 1974-75 was due from the Society, that the Society had fixed the limit of cash in hand, that the construction of godown has already started that old loans were given 15 days, notice on 29.11.1975 and that the Society was discharging its duties in accordance with the bye-laws. It is further stated that by 28.2.1976 the Society would recover Rs. 60,000/- and that it will comply with the directions of the Department.
4. On receipt of the reply from the Society the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, sent the same to Inspector, Co-operative Societies at Dehlon for his comments. The comments of the Inspector were received on 19.4.1976. The Assistant Registrar considered the comments of the Inspector and observed that th
