Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jagdish Sahai, J.
RAJA HIMANSHU DHAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondents
Writ Appeal 272 Of 1960
Decided On : 09/12/1961
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - APPEAL - RIGHT OF - RULE MAKING POWER - SECRETARY - AUTHORITY TO CANCEL MEETING - MEETING - NOTICE - BYE-LAW 21 - INTERPRETATION - PROCEEDINGS - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose within the Hind Provincial Flying Club, a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, regarding the validity of a meeting held on May 15, 1960. The Secretary of the Club, Respondent No. 2, issued a notice canceling the meeting scheduled for that day, prompting some members to assemble and hold the meeting despite the cancellation. The Deputy Registrar referred the matter for arbitration, and the Assistant Registrar declared the meeting to be valid. Respondent No. 2 appealed to the Additional Registrar, who set aside the award and declared the meeting invalid. The petitioner, a member of the Club, challenged the Additional Registrar's order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the right of appeal against an award made under the Co-operative Societies Act was validly conferred by the rules framed under the Act. The rule-making power extended to framing rules for appeals in cases other than those provided for in Section 43(2)(s) of the Act. The Secretary did not have the authority to cancel the meeting as his powers were limited to those specified in the rules, and there was no provision in the rules authorizing him to cancel a meeting. The Court further held that the proceedings of the meeting held on May 15, 1960, were void as notices were not issued to all the members of the Club, despite the protection provided by Bye-law 21 for proceedings of meetings where notices were not received by members.
Issues: 1. Whether the right of appeal against an award made under the Co-operative Societies Act was validly conferred by the rules framed under the Act. 2. Whether the rule-making power extended to framing rules for appeals in cases other than those provided for in Section 43(2)(s) of the Act. 3. Whether the Secretary had the authority to cancel the meeting. 4. Whether the proceedings of the meeting held on May 15, 1960, were valid despite the absence of notices to all members.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of appeal against an award made under the Co-operative Societies Act was validly conferred by the rules framed under the Act. The rule-making power extended to framing rules for appeals in cases other than those provided for in Section 43(2)(s) of the Act, as the general language of Section 43(1) amply justified the terms of the rules. 2. The Secretary did not have the authority to cancel the meeting as his powers were limited to those specified in the rules, and there was no provision in the rules authorizing him to cancel a meeting. 3. The proceedings of the meeting held on May 15, 1960, were void as notices were not issued to all the members of the Club, despite the protection provided by Bye-law 21 for proceedings of meetings where notices were not received by members.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there were no merits in the petitioner's challenge to the Additional Registrar's order.
( 1 ) RAJA Himanshu Dhar Singh, who is a member of the Hind Provincial Flying Club, has come up to his Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 1 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. , lucknow, on the 3rd of October, 1960.
( 2 ) THE Hind Provincial Flying Club (hereinafter referred to as the Club) is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. According to the allegations made by the petitioner the respondent No. 2 Sri B. P. Singh, who is the secretary of the club, issued a notice calling the tenth annual general meeting of the Club at the Club Office for the 15th of May, 1960, at 4 p. m. It is further alleged that notices under the signature of the respondent No. 2 were served on the members of the Club-On the morning of 15th of May, 1960, a notice was published in the local newspapers to the effect that the meeting scheduled to be held that day at 4 p. m. had been cancelled. Some of the members however assembled at the scheduled time on the appointed day and a meeting was in fact field. The respondent No. 2 treating the proceedings of the meeting mentioned above to be invalid, moved the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. , (hereinafter called the Deputy Registrar) to decide the dispute as required by the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The Deputy Registrar referred the matter for arbitration, to the Assistant Registrar purporting to act under Rule 115 of the rules framed under the Act. The Assistant Registrar gave his award and declared the meeting dated the 15th of May, 1960, to have been regularly held and further held that the proceedings of that meeting were valid. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the award mentioned above filed an appeal before the respondent no. 1 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. , (hereinafer called the Additional registrar ). The Additional Registrar allowed the appeal and set aside the award made by the assistant Registrar by his order dated 3rd of October, 1960. It is that order which is sought to be quashed.
( 3 ) I have heard Mr. H. L. Varma in support of the petition and Mr. Jagdish Swarup and Mr. Sridhar Misra for the respondents. Four submissions have been made by Mr. Varma before me. They are:
1. No appeal lay to the Registrar Or the Additional Registrar nor was a revision application competent. 2. Rules 133 and 135 are ultra vires because they are outside the scope of the powers conferred by the Act on the State Government to frame rules. 3. The Secretary had no authority to cancel the meeting.
( 4 ) THE quorum in the meeting dated 15th of May, 1960, was complete and the said meeting did not suffer from the defect of want of quorum.
4. I will take the Submissions seriatim. Rule 133 of the rules reads as follows: 133. Any party considering itself aggrieved by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators may appeal to the Registrar within one month of the date of the communication of the award, and the registrar shall pass such orders as he deems fit provided that the time taken in obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded in counting the period of one month. "
Rule 135 runs as follows:"135. The Registrar may review his own order or revise that of an Assistant Registrar or revise an award given by an arbitrator or arbitrators or the orders passed in appeal by an Assistant registrar, against an award, within six months of such order or award; provided such review or revision is in his judgment necessary in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience. "
( 5 ) A perusal of these two provisions clearly reveals that a right of appeal has been conferred against any award made under the provisions of the Act. Mr. Varma has contended that it is well established law that a right of appeal is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
