Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
K. K. Dubey and J. S. Verma, JJ.
SEWA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MAHAGARH - Appellant
Versus
RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN KOKIL - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 70 Of 1972
Decided On : 01/30/1974
A meeting duly called cannot be adjourned except on the ground of want of quorum. The adjournment should be made for a specified date. [Para 6
(2) Co operative Societies Rules, 1962 (MP) - R.36-President and Vice President leaving the meeting in the middle-members may continue the meeting after electing one of the members to preside over the meeting. [Para 7
(3) Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (MP) - R.41 - powers of the Returning Officer-cannot stay the election.
Clauses (13) & (23) of rule 41 of the Rules which are particularly relevant for this purpose clearly indicate that the Returning Officer has no authority to regulate the proceedings and that he is present at the general meeting only to watch the proceedings relating to election and to supervise the same. This being so, the Returning Officer, even assuming that he was duly appointed had clearly no power to adjourn the meeting or to stay the elections. [Para 7 (4)
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MP) - S.49 - powers and functions of the nominee of the Assistant Registrar-cannot regulate its conduct-declaration of result of election-cannot be made by such nominee.
Sub-section (3) of S.49 of the Act enables the Assistant Registrar or his nominee to attend such a meeting. This provision does not enable the Assistant Registrar or his nominee to either preside over the meeting or to regulate its conduct. Assuming, therefore, that the Returning officer was validly appointed in the present case, the only authority he had was to attend the same and discharge the functions of the Returning officer contemplated particularly by clauses (13) and (23) of rule 41 of the Rules. However none of these provisions enable the Returning Officer to declare the results and clause (13) clearly says that the declaration is to be made by the President of the meeting. [Paras 11
(5) Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (MP) - R.38-record in the minutes book regarding election-is presumed to be correct. [Para 11
(6) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MP)-S. 57 (a)-scope of-action when may be taken - disturbances in a meeting-no ground for taking action - action cannot be taken on illusory grounds-order when justitiable.
Section 57 (a) empowers the Registrar, if satisfied, that the records of the society are likely to be tampered with or destroyed and the funds and property of the society an likely to be mis-appropriated or misapplied to direct their seizure and delivery thereof to the persons so authorised.
Such satisfaction is the condition precedent for exercise of the power.
The satisfaction of the Assistant Registrar is subjective in such a case but where such satisfaction is disputed the power of judicial review is available to a limited extent within which alone we have to exercise the same. It is settled that where the subjective satisfaction of an authority is challenged, the power of judicial review is available to quash the order even though passed in food faith if the same is made beyond the limits of the power conferred or is passed on grounds extraneous or if there are no grounds at all for passing it. In either of these situations, the opinion of the authority so formed cannot be said to be passed on relevant facts. It is only when there is no such defect in the order that no challenge can be made on the ground of propriety or sufficiency of the material which led to the opinion. AIR 1967 SC 295 relied on. [Para 12
(7) Constitution of India-Arts. 226 & 127 - alternative remedy of appeal available - writ petition admitted before the expiry of limitation of appeal-petition should not be thrown out on ground of alternative remedy. [Para 9
(8) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MP) - S.64-scope of-action taken by Registrar under section 57 (a) of the Act-dispute not covered within the ambit of section 64-it is so also because the Registrar is a party to such action.
Section 57 (a) of the Act under which the impugned order has been made is in no way directly connected with the election of the Society. It is also significant that the disputes contemplated within the am bit of section 64 of the Act are only those to which the Registrar himself is not a party for the simple reason that the adjudication of such disputes is to be made by the Registrar himself. That being so, a dispute to which the Registrar himself is one of the parties, as in the present case the impugned order being made in exercise of the Registrar's powers under section 57 of the Act, cannot be treated as one falling within the ambit of section 64 of the Act. [Para 9
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to the affairs of Sewa Sahakari Sanstha, Mahagarh, a primary credit society duly registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). The petitioners seek to have the order, dated, 22-6-1972 (Annexure X to the petition) issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District mandsaur quashed hereby. By this order purporting to be made under Section 57 (a) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar has directed the Co-operative Extension officer, District Mandsaur (respondent No. 2) to seize the entire record of the society from the petitioners and to hand over the same thereafter to Bhawani shankar (respondent No. 3) who has been described as the President of the equivalent Citation: society.
( 2 ) AT the very outset, we are constrained to observe that the undisputed facts placed before us do disclose a shocking state of affairs in respect of the management of the Society and it is clear that notwithstanding such facts being brought to the notice of the Assistant Registrar, no action was taken, by the assistant Registrar to put an end to the highhanded manner in which the affairs of the society were being managed by respondent No. 3 Bhawani Shankar, who had been elected as the President of the Society at the end of 1967. We have no doubt that but for such inaction of the Assistant Registrar, which must be attributed at least to his callous indifference if not active complicity with the respondent No. 3 bhawani Shankar, the situation which resulted therefrom and has ultimately occasioned this petition, would not have arisen.
( 3 ) ON 31-12-1967, the Board of Directors of the Society was elected and respondent No. 3 was made its President. The first annual general meeting was then held on 2-10-1968. Admittedly, the term of the Board of Directors was for a period of three years so that the term of the Board of Directors elected on 31-121967 including the President and the Vice-President was to expire on 31-12-1970. According to Section 49 of the Act, the Society was required to call the annual general meeting within a period of 12 months from the date of last annual general meeting and if the term of the Committee was to end within a period of three months from the date of the annual general meeting, then the election of the members of the Committee had also to be held therein. It is strange that after the first annual general meeting of the society, which was held on 2-10-1968, the next annual general meeting was admittedly held only on 11-6-1972 and during the period intervening either no such meeting was called or if it was called the president Bhawani Shankar (respondent No. 3) adjourned it on some pretext or the other, which, in our opinion, was no justification for postponing the annual general meeting. During this period, the petitioners brought the dereliction of this duty on the part of the President to the notice of the authorities but, as already stated, they remained silent on the issue. Obviously such conduct on the part of the authorities assisted the respondent No. 3, Bhawani Shankar in deferring the calling of the annual general meeting till it was held on 11-6-1972.
( 4 ) BY the notice, dated 10-6-1972 (Annexure L to the petition), the annual general meeting was called for 11-6-1972, wherein the last item of the agenda was relating to holding of the election which had been long overdue. It may be reiterated here that the term of the Board of Directors including that of the president and the Vice-President had expired on 31-12-1970 so that the persons elected on 31-12-1967 continued to hold office after 31-12-1970 simply because the annual general meeting had not been called by respondent No. 3 till 11-61972. There is no dispute that when the meeting commenced on 11-6-1972 under the President ship of respondent No. 3, the business relating to first six items of the agenda was
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
