JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the order dated 19th May, 1967, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, be quashed and for a consequential mandamus.

2. Devendra Pal Singh, petitioner No. 1, was the Managing Director of the Aligarh District Co-operative Bank Limited, a central Co-operative Society. The other petitioner are members of its Board of Directors. On 21st March, 1967, the Bank received a show-cause notice under rule 31 (a) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, requiring the Bank to show cause against the charges of mismanagement etc. levelled therein. The Bank submitted an explanation on 4th April, 1967. In the explanation it expressed a desire that the members of the Board may be given a personal hearing. On 27th April, 1967, the Bank received information from the Deputy Registrar that 4th May, 1967, had been fixed for personal hearing On 2nd May, 1967, the Managing Director addressed a letter to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies requesting an adjournment of the date for personal hearing. It appears that the annual central meeting was to be held on 22nd May, 1967. The first petitioner requested that a date for personal hearing be fixed after 22nd May, 1967. Apparently the Deputy Registrar did not accede to this request for adjournment, and on 19th May, 1967, passed an order purporting to be under rule 31 (a) of the Rules suspending the Committee of Management (the Board of Directors) of the Bank excepting the President and the Assistant Registrar (who was a Government nominated Director) and appointing Sri A. Wasey, Assistant Registrar, as Administrator of the Bank. The order directed that the Administrator shall exercise, till further orders and subject to such restrictions as may be laid down from time to time by the Deputy Registrar, Agra, all the powers vested according to bye-laws in the Committee of Management, Executive Committee and Managing Director of the Bank. This order is sought to be quashed on the following grounds:

1. That rule 31 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936, is ultra vires the rule making power conferred by Section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912.

2. That rule 31 is void for delegation of legislative powers beyond constitutionally permissible limits.

3. That rule 31 violates Articles 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel also argued that the impugned orders do not satisfy the conditions precedent mentioned in rule 31 and that they have been passed mala fide, and, there was no evidence or material to support the conclusions reached in the final order. I have heard learned counsel of the legal questions alone. In writ petition No. 1996 of 1967, the Varanasi Whole-sale Central Consumers Co-operative Stores v. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 1968 ALJ 19, decided by me today, I have upheld the first two points, namely that rule 31 is ultra vires the rule making power and in the alternative it was void for delegation of legislative powers. In the Varanasi case learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press the point that rule 31 violates Articles 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Constitution. This point was not discussed in that case. In the present case, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pressed this point also.

The question whether rule 31 violates Article 31 of the Constitution would arise only if it is held that the rule is otherwise valid, that is to say it has the force of law by being within the rule making power and not being void for excessive delegation. In order to deal with the present point it will be assumed that my decision on these two points was wrong and the rule was not invalid on these grounds.

Article 31 (a) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Supreme Court decision in Katra Education Society, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Prade