JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - On 29th May, 1967, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Varanasi, issued an order suspending the management of the petitioner viz. the Varanasi Whole-sale Central in whole, and appointing Sri I.P. Singh, an official of the Cooperative Department, as Administrator of the Stores till further orders. He was directed to take over complete charge of the Stores and assume all powers of the Committee of Management of the Stores. The order stated that "whereas a heavy embezzlement of the Funds of the Stores has been committed and the management of the Stores has conducted its affairs in 3 manner prejudicial to its interest and which is likely to end in disaster. it is considered inevitable to stop the management from further functioning in order to save the Stores from ultimate collapse." This order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to rule 31 of the Rules framed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. The same day, the Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice uncle,- rule 31 (a). In this, 25 charges were set out. The President and the Members of the Committee of Management were direct-ed to submit their clarification of all the charges within 30 days. The order of suspension and the notice are sought to be quashed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Ski S.C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged these orders on the following grounds:

(i) That rule 31 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1936, is ultra vires the hilt making power conferred by Section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912.

(ii) That rule 31 is void for delegation of legislative powers, beyond the constitutionally permissible limits.

(iii) That rule 31 violates Article 31 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.

(iv) That the impugned orders do not satisfy the conditions precedent set out in rule 31.

(v) That the impugned orders have been passed mala fide with a view to sub-serve the political interests of the Jan Sangh party which was a constituent of the State Government, by ousting Congressmen who were in control of the Committee of Management of the Stores.

(vi) That the notice contains Vague charges and does not disclose the materials which were treated as sustaining them.

I have heard the learned counsel on the legal points only. The first point relates to the vires of rule 31. It runs as follows:

"31 (a) Where the Registrar is satisfied that the members of the Committee of Management of a registered society have, in spite of protests from an officer of the Cooperative Department, the Financing Bank, if any, or members of the society, persisted in conducting its affairs in a manner prejudicial to its interest and likely to end in disaster, he may communicate in writing the grounds of his finding and give the Committee reasonable time to show cause why it should not be stopped from functioning further. In case the explanation is unsatisfactory he may suspend the Committee in whole or in part as a temporary measure and arrange for the work, until the next Annual General Meeting is held. The Registrar may himself assume all the powers and functions of the CoMmittee or he may appoint an Administrator or an ad hoc committee or both to manage on his behalf the affairs of the society during such period. Such Administrator or ad hoc Committee will have all or any of the powers of the Committee of Management as the Registrar may direct.

Provided that in urgent cases where the Registrar is satisfied that the need for suspension is immediate, he may pass an order suspending the Committee in whole or in part as a temporary measure, and may thereafter issue a notice to show cause why the Board of Management or the Executive Committee be not dissolved or altered in part or whole, and the order of temporary suspension will remain in force till the Committee has shown cause against the notice and a final order