JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have called in question an order dated 9.3.2022 passed by respondent no.2, Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Cooperative, U.P. Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad suspending the first petitioner, which is Committee of Management of a primary agricultural Cooperative Society, in exercise of power under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent no.2, while passing the above order, has placed reliance on an interim enquiry report submitted under Section 65 of the Act and has concluded that financial irregularities seem to have been committed by the petitioner Committee of Management. He has also held that there are repeated defaults on part of the petitioner Committee in observing its duties imposed upon it under law and in future there is likelihood of an adverse report coming against the petitioner Committee in enquiry that is pending under Section 65 of the Act. Consequently, it is desirable to keep the petitioner Committee of Management under suspension. By the same order, he has proceeded to appoint an interim Committee comprising of Additional District Cooperative Officer (Banking), Bijnor, Additional District Cooperative Officer, Tehsil Nagina and Additional Development Officer (Cooperative), Vikas Khand, Dhampur.

2. Sri Rakesh Pande, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suspending the petitioner Committee of Management is erroneous in law inasmuch as no proceeding for supersession of the Committee of Management has yet been initiated. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the language used in sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Veerpal Singh Vs. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1973, SC 1249.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even otherwise, the impugned order is manifestly illegal inasmuch as the formation of opinion to keep the petitioner Committee of Management under suspension is based on conjecture that in future there is likelihood of an adverse report being submitted against the petitioner Committee in enquiry pending under Section 65 of the Act. He further submitted that certain other irregularities alleged relate to the period when the petitioner Committee of Management was not in power, therefore, it cannot be held accountable for the same.

4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, who has been heard as an intervenor, submitted that the stage of calling general body meeting as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act has yet not arrived. They submitted that in view of serious irregularities coming to knowledge of respondent no.2, he was justified in suspending the petitioner Committee of Management.

5. Section 35 (1) and (2), which are relevant for the present controversy, are reproduced below:-

“35. Supersession or suspension of Committee of Management.-[(1) Where, in the opinion, of the Registrar the Committee of Management of any Cooperative Society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws of the society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar after affording the Committee of Management a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the General Body of the society in a general meeting called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order in writing, supersede the Committee of Management:

Provided that where under the prescribed circumstances it is not feasible to convene a general meeting of the General Body of the society, the Registrar may dispense with the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the General Body of the society:

Provided further