Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J.
KAMTA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondents
Misce. Petn. 350 Of 1966
Decided On : 01/19/1967
It is quite true that action under sub rule (2) can be taken against a member having regard to the interest of the individual society of which he is a member, and the necessity or desirability of the expulsion of a member from the Society has to be determined from the stand point of the interest of that Society and not from the point of view of the person who is to be expelled A notice under sub-rule (2) must, therefore, be with reference to the interest of the particular Society from which a member is sought to be expelled. The interest of a Society requiring the expulsion of a member thereof may vary from Society to Society. But where it appears to the Registrar that the person concerned is by reason of defect of character or by reason of any action of is unfit to be a member of any Cooperative Society, then a distinction between the interest of one Co operative Society or that of another in regard to the matter of expulsion of the member cannot be drawn so as to invalidate an omnibus notice issued by the Registrar to the person concerned to explain why he should not be expelled from the Co-operative Societies specified in the notice of which he is a member.
The petitioner's. expulsion was founded solely on the ground that the Allahabad High Court had described him as a 'liar' and a 'trickster' and defected his prosecution for perjury. If this ground of expulsion is valid in the case of anyone Society, it would be valid in the case of all Societies. Therefore, the contention that the Registrar should have given separate notices to the petitioner in respect of each of the Societies from which he was to be expelled and that the omnibus notice that he issued was invalid cannot be accepted. [Para 8
(2) Co-operative Societies Rules 1962 (M. P.)-R. 18 (2)-'interest of the Society'-what is-object of the Co-operative movement-High Court declaring a person a liar, trickster and inclined to give false evidence-his expulsion is in the interest of the society.
That a member can be expelled from a Co operative Society if it appears to the Registrar that he is a liar, trickster and inclined to give false evidence is obvious enough. The Co operative movement is both a theory of life and a system of business. It is a form of voluntary association where individuals unite for mutual aid in the production and distribution of wealth upon principles of equity, reason and common good. It stands for distributive justice and asserts the principle of equality and equity ensuring to all these engaged in the production of wealth a share proportionately commensurate with the degree of their contribution. It provides as a substitute for material assets, honesty and a sense of moral obligation and keeps in view the moral rather than the material sanction. The movement is thus a great moral movement. Such being the nature of the co-operative movement, there is no place in any Co-operative Society for any member who is not honest and who, as the Allahabad High Court observed in regard to the applicant, is a 'liar', 'trickster' and inclined to give false evidence. It is clearly in the interest of the Society that such a member should be expelled there from. [Para 9
(3) Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (M. P.)-R. 18 (2)- personal hearing-when may not be given-principals of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice no doubt require that a decision adverse to a party should not be taken without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations or materiel against him. This principle has been recognised by rule 18 (2) by providing that the member intended to be expelled should be called upon to explain within the specified period why he should not be expelled from the Society. The opportunity of "explaining" given by rule 18 (2) need not necessarily be by personal hearing. It can be by written representation Here, the applicant gave his explanation in writing and in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary for the Registrar to give him a personal bearing. The petitioner as well as the Registrar had to accept the correctness of the observations of the Allahabad High Court made in regard to the petitioner. After accepting those observations, all that the Registrar had to decide was whether having regard to them the petitioner should be allowed to continue as a member of any Co-operative Society. Thus; there was no question of the petitioner being given any opportunity for rebutting by personal hearing or otherwise any material against him. [Para 11
( 1 ) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner kamta Prasacl seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 31st May 1966 expelling him from 14 Cooperative societies registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies act, 1960. , An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the registrar was rejected by the State Government and a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing also this order of the Government.
( 2 ) THE material facts are that till the passing of the impugned order the applicant was a member of 14 Co-operative Societies. He was a primary member of some of the Cooperative Societies and also President or Chairman of some of them. In other Co-operative Societies, he was a member of the managing committee. Of the Co-operative Societies in which the petitioner was a member, some are banking Co-operative Societies and others are marketing Co-operative Societies. The Bhopal Printers and Publishers Co-operative Press Ltd. , Bhopal, of which the petitioner was the President, used to publish a Hindi weekly "kisan Rajya". In the issues of the paper dated 26th January 1965, 10th February 1965 and 18th march 1965 certain articles and news items appeared having a bearing on matters which were sub judice in a prosecution against Bishambhar Dayal and others in respect of offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 477-A, 201 and 120-B of the indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur. Bishambhar Dayal and other accused persons moved the Allahabad H4gh Court for punishing the petitioner Kamta Prasad and the printer and publisher of the paper "kisan Rajya" for contempt of Court in respect of the objectionable publications. In these contempt of Court proceedings the Allahabad High Court found the applicant kamta Prasad guilty of contempt of Court and imposed on him a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer one month's simple imprisonment. In the judgment finding Kamta Prasad guilty of contempt of Court, the learned judge of the Allahabad High Court who decided the contempt case observed:
"i have also had occasion to watch the demeanour of Kamta Prasad when he was in the witness-box on various dates. In my judgment he is a liar, a trickster and a wholly unreliable: person, who has fruitlessly tried to snare M. Dayal into this case. His evidence and other material on record show that he has instituted a criminal case against M. Dayal at bhopal, which is still pending. It is obvious that Kamta Prasad has tried to involve M. Dayal in this case out of his pique and animosity towards the latter, by shifting major responsibility on Him. I, therefore, find that there is no evidence against M. Dayal (respondent No. 7) to fasten any responsibility on him regarding the impugned printing and publication in various issues in the "kisan Rajya ".
In the end, the learned Judge also said: "before parting with this case I am constrained to remark that Kamta prasad respondent has intentionally given wrong deposition and has also fabricated false evidence in the course of these proceedings, as discussed above. Hence for the eradication of the evil of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interest of justice it is expedient that Kamta Prasad be prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Registrar of the High Court is directed to forward a complaintagainst Kamta Prasad to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction to try the same, setting forth the facts of the case and pointing out the evidence, which is false and fabricated, in the light of my observations contained in this judgment. " when this judgment came to the notice of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, madhya Pradesh, the Registrar wrote a letter to Kamta Prasad suggesting that in view of the strictures passed against him by the Allahabad High Court in the contempt matter, it w
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
